The appeals court ruling against President Trump’s tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act drew a sharp dissent.

Peter Navarro, Trump’s trade advisor, has insisted that the dissent gives the administration a “roadmap” to win at the Supreme Court in November.

Navarro is wrong. The dissent provides a series of detours into statutory misreadings and constitutional overreach. If anything, it makes the weaknesses of the administration’s case even clearer.

That dissent leans on the idea that because the International Emergency Economic Powers Act grants the president sweeping powers in a “national emergency,” tariffs must fall within its scope. But Congress has spoken clearly on tariff authority, just not in that act.

Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 allows temporary tariffs in response to balance-of-payments crises. Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 provides for tariffs when imports threaten national security. Section 301 targets unfair or discriminatory practices abroad.

Each of these statutes comes with conditions, procedures and limits. If the International........

© The Hill