Poli Alert Politics & Civics
Related Articles
Several of the Supreme Court’s conservative justices appeared skeptical Wednesday that President Donald Trump has the unilateral power to impose far-reaching tariffs, raising the possibility that the court could strike down one of the most consequential parts of his economic agenda.
The case marks the biggest legal test yet of Trump’s presidency, challenging his broad use of emergency powers to set and change import duties without congressional approval. Lower courts have already ruled that the 1977 law Trump invoked — the International Emergency Economic Powers Act — does not grant him unlimited tariff authority.
The Constitution gives Congress the power to levy tariffs, but Trump’s administration argues that in emergency situations, the president can regulate importation — and that regulation can include tariffs.
Conservative skepticism on display
Justice Amy Coney Barrett pressed the Justice Department’s lawyer on whether the law’s language truly allows the president to tax imports. “Has there ever been another instance in which a statute has used that language to confer the power?” she asked.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, another Trump appointee, raised constitutional concerns about executive overreach. “Is the constitutional assignment of the taxing power to Congress, the power to reach into the pockets of the American people, just different?” he asked. “And it’s been different since the founding?”
Chief Justice John Roberts also questioned the administration’s position, suggesting he might not be persuaded. With the court’s three liberal justices expressing open doubt, the challengers could prevail if they can secure two conservative votes.
A decision could take weeks or months, but a ruling against Trump would represent a major blow to his presidency and to the economic nationalism that has defined much of his agenda.
A far-reaching economic test
Trump has described the case as one of the most important in U.S. history, warning that a loss could “devastate” the economy. His administration is defending two sets of tariffs: those imposed in February on imports from Canada, China, and Mexico after declaring a national emergency over drug trafficking, and the “reciprocal tariffs” announced in April on most countries.
Challengers — a coalition of small businesses and Democratic-led states — say the law Trump used doesn’t even mention tariffs, and that no previous president has used it to impose them. They argue that the uncertainty and price increases have pushed businesses to the brink of collapse.
Lower courts struck down most of the tariffs as an illegal use of emergency powers, but Trump’s lawyers contend that his actions are a legitimate exercise of authority over foreign affairs, an area where courts have historically given presidents wide latitude.
Echoes of major power disputes
The case has drawn comparisons to last year’s decision striking down President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan, when the justices said the law he used didn’t clearly authorize such sweeping economic changes. The court relied on the “major questions doctrine,” which holds that executive actions with vast financial or political significance must be explicitly approved by Congress.
The challengers argue Trump’s tariffs deserve similar scrutiny because they could raise $3 trillion over the next decade. Trump’s Justice Department counters that tariffs are a diplomatic tool, not a domestic spending measure, and thus fall within presidential power.
They are also battling claims under the nondelegation doctrine, which limits how much legislative power Congress can hand to other branches of government. Trump’s interpretation, challengers argue, would effectively allow any official who can “regulate” trade to also impose taxes — a clear breach of constitutional separation of powers.
The Justice Department says that principle doesn’t apply to the president himself.
Billions at stake
If Trump loses, the administration may need to refund some of the $195 billion in tariffs collected so far, though other trade laws could still allow him to reimpose narrower duties with stricter limits.
Four appeals court judges sided with Trump, finding that IEEPA gives the president broad discretion to regulate imports during emergencies. They noted that Congress has gradually ceded tariff authority to the executive branch over the past several decades — a shift Trump has taken to its furthest extreme.
A ruling from the Supreme Court could reset that balance, defining the outer edge of presidential power in economic emergencies and shaping how far future presidents can go in using crises to justify sweeping trade actions.
