Conservative justices on the U.S. Supreme Court expressed skepticism regarding President Donald Trump’s unilateral tariffs during a hearing on a significant case that could redefine executive power. The case is particularly critical as it tests the limits of presidential authority in imposing tariffs, a central component of Trump’s economic strategy. The justices’ inquiries suggested doubts about the legal foundation of the tariffs, although the arguments are ongoing, and a decision may take weeks or months.
The Trump administration is defending these tariffs, which a lower court ruled were imposed through an “emergency” law that does not grant him broad powers to set and alter import duties. The Constitution explicitly states that Congress holds the authority to levy tariffs. However, the administration contends that in emergency situations, the president can regulate importation, including tariffs. Justice Amy Coney Barrett challenged this claim, asking, “Has there ever been another instance in which a statute has used that language to confer the power?” Justice Neil Gorsuch also raised concerns about whether the current interpretation would effectively transfer congressional powers to the president.
The stakes are high for Trump, who has labeled this case as one of the most vital in the nation’s history, warning that a ruling against him could be disastrous for the economy. Opponents of the tariffs, including a coalition of small businesses, argue that the 1977 emergency powers law invoked by Trump does not mention tariffs and that no president has previously used it to impose them. These businesses cite the uncertainty surrounding the tariffs as a factor pushing them toward bankruptcy.
This pivotal case revolves around two specific sets of tariffs. The first set was implemented in February on imports from Canada, China, and Mexico following Trump’s declaration of a national emergency concerning drug trafficking. The second set encompasses the broad “reciprocal” tariffs announced in April, targeting a wide range of countries. Multiple lawsuits challenging these tariffs have been filed, including suits from Democratic-leaning states and small businesses dealing in various sectors, from plumbing supplies to women’s cycling apparel.
Lower courts have largely deemed Trump’s tariffs as an illegal exercise of emergency power, but the Supreme Court may adopt a different perspective. Historically, the justices have shown hesitance to limit executive power, having previously ruled in favor of Trump on several emergency matters. Yet, this case could significantly influence legal challenges against his policies moving forward.
The justices have previously demonstrated skepticism toward broad claims of executive power, as seen in a case involving President Joe Biden‘s attempt to forgive approximately $400 billion in student loan debt under emergency powers. The Supreme Court concluded that the law did not grant him the authority to implement such an economically impactful program, a principle known as the major questions doctrine. The challengers argue that Trump’s tariffs should similarly face stringent scrutiny, as they could generate an estimated $3 trillion in revenue over the next decade.
In defense, the government argues that the tariffs are an integral aspect of Trump’s foreign affairs strategy, suggesting that courts should refrain from second-guessing the president in this arena. The challengers also seek to invoke the justices’ skepticism regarding the Constitution’s division of powers, arguing that Trump’s interpretation could allow any entity with regulatory authority to impose taxes.
The Justice Department counters that the concept of nondelegation applies to governmental agencies rather than the president, maintaining that the president’s powers in emergencies are well established. Should the Supreme Court rule against Trump, he could still impose tariffs under different laws, though those would come with stricter limitations regarding the speed and extent of implementation.
The implications of a ruling against Trump could also be complex, particularly regarding potential reimbursements for the tariffs that have generated $195 billion in revenue as of September 2023. The Trump administration had previously gained the support of four appellate judges who concluded that the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act provides the president with authority to regulate importation during emergencies without explicit constraints.
As the court deliberates, the outcome could set a significant precedent for executive power and the future of U.S. trade policy. Follow ongoing coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court for further developments on this critical case.