Noah Walsh

Today, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the cases challenging President Trump’s assertion of unilateral tariff authority. The Court’s decision will have an impact not just on the President’s current tariff policy, but, potentially, for the balance of powers between Congress and the President for decades to come. The Justices asked numerous good questions challenging the government’s position. Justice Gorsuch and Justice Barrett, echoing an argument made by Advancing American Freedom in its amicus brief, pressed the Solicitor General on whether Congress would ever effectively be able to reclaim the power at issue in this case if it had truly delegated it to the President. As the late Justice Scalia recognized, it is the structure of our constitutional system, which divides power among three coequal branches, that preserves American liberty. We hope the Court will recognize the significant implications this case has for every American’s freedom from unilateral power and will strike down the President’s tariffs.

Advancing American Freedom, leading a coalition of 26 amici, filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in V.O.S. Solutions, Inc. v. Trump and Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump urging the Court to strike down the President’s unilateral tariffs. In August, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that President Trump’s tariffs exceed the power granted to him by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). As AAF’s amicus brief argues, if IEEPA did grant the President the power he claims, it would unconstitutionally transfer Congress’s core powers of taxation and commerce regulation to the President. The Court must rule for small businesses and restore the separation of powers created by the Constitution.

“America’s Founders distributed the government’s powers among three separate branches because they understood the dangers of centralized and unilateral power,” said AAF General Counsel J. Marc Wheat. “This case strikes at the core of our constitutional system. The Supreme Court must ensure that Congress, not the President, controls the federal government’s taxing power.”

Advancing American Freedom led a coalition of 57 amici in filing an amicus brief in Littlejohn v. School Board of Leon County, Florida, urging the Supreme Court to hear the case. In this case, despite specific instructions from parent January Littlejohn, school officials began using they/them pronouns and a male name for the Littlejohns’ then-thirteen-year-old daughter.

The Littlejohns sued to protect their parental right to raise their daughter, but the lower courts ruled against them. AAF urges the Court to hear this case and protect the rights of the Littlejohns and parents across the county.

“Parents send their children to school to learn reading, math, science, and history, not to be indoctrinated by gender ideologists,” said AAF General Counsel J. Marc Wheat. “Yet, parents around the country in recent years have found out only later that their child has been the victim of psychological manipulation. The Court must address this issue before more families suffer.”

Advancing American Freedom led a coalition of 31 amici in filing an amicus brief in Planned Parenthood v. Kennedy arguing that Planned Parenthood is not entitled to taxpayer funds. Earlier this year, Congress passed and President Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act which withdrew Medicaid funding from certain abortion clinics, including Planned Parenthood and its affiliates, for one year. Planned Parenthood sued the Trump Administration arguing that it was entitled to the funds regardless. AAF’s brief argues that, not only is Planned Parenthood not entitled to the funding it demands in part because such funding would be unconstitutional.

“Congress alone controls the federal power of the purse and is entitled to choose not to fund organizations like Planned Parenthood,” said AAF General Counsel J. Marc Wheat. “We urge the First Circuit to rule for the Administration and for Congress’s authority over federal spending.”

Advancing American Freedom led a coalition of 31 other amici filing an amicus brief in Miller v. Civil Rights Department. In this case, Catherine Miller, a Christian and owner of Tastries Bakery in California, declined to bake a cake for a lesbian couple’s wedding celebration. In response, the California Civil Rights Department filed a complaint against her in state court. Although Ms. Miller won before the trial court, the California appellate court ruled against her. She is now asking the Supreme Court to review her case.

The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of religious business owners in the past, but religious Americans’ ability to run their business in accord with their religious values will not be secure until the Supreme Court provides greater clarity on the limits of state power.

“The Supreme Court’s earlier decisions, especially in 303 Creative, LLC v. Elenis, should have settled this case. But, unsurprisingly, the ideologues in the California government are looking for any loophole to harass Christian business owners,” said AAF General Counsel J. Marc Wheat. “We urge the Supreme Court to take this case and make clear, once and for all, that business owners have a fundamental right to operate their businesses in accord with their convictions.”