Trump’s tariffs get frosty reception at Supreme Court

President Trump’s tariffs were met with reservations from the Supreme Court as his administration faced incisive questioning Wednesday over its use of emergency powers to justify his sweeping economic agenda. 

The court’s conservative majority tussled over whether Trump stretched his emergency authority too far or if it fits within his leeway over foreign policy, as Chief Justice John Roberts and two of Trump’s own appointees appeared concerned by the administration’s arguments.  

“The justification is being used for the power to impose tariffs on any product, from any country, for any amount, for any length of time,” Roberts said. “I'm not suggesting it's not there, but it does seem like that's major authority.” 

The stakes are high, with one of Trump’s biggest agenda items — as well as the potential impacts for economies around the world — on the line. The president says he has used tariffs to pressure foreign countries to end global conflicts and has asserted an unfavorable ruling would spell economic disaster. 

At the heart of the case is an untested expansion of executive power: Trump’s invocation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) in imposing tariffs on nearly every foreign nation. 

The 1977 law empowers the president to “regulate” imports to deal with certain national emergencies. But it has never been used to impose tariffs — and the small businesses and Democratic-led states challenging the president’s move contend it was never meant to be. 

The tariffs roiled financial markets this spring, and businesses have continued to grapple with uncertainty caused by the new, ever-changing levy rates.

“This is a one-way ratchet,” said Neal Katyal, a veteran Supreme Court advocate who represented the small businesses and was former President Obama’s solicitor general. “We will never get this power back if the government wins this case.” 

Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch, two of Trump’s three Supreme Court nominees, seemed similarly perturbed, pressing the administration over the basis for handing the president such vast power and its limits. 

Barrett questioned whether there is “any other place” in the law or “any other time in history” where the key phrase “regulate importation” has been used to confer tariff-imposing authority. 

Gorsuch acknowledged the government's position that there’s no cause for concern due to the president’s “inherent authority” over foreign affairs but wondered where such an expansion of authority would end.  

“What would prohibit Congress from just abdicating all responsibility to regulate foreign commerce — for that matter, to declare war — to the president?” he asked. 

Trump has declared emergencies over fentanyl to impose tariffs on Canada, China and Mexico and trade deficits to implement his global tariffs on dozens of trading partners. After announcing an initial round of widespread tariff rates in April, the administration announced on July 31 that it would formally impose adjusted rates in August.

The Justice Department contends that judges have no authority to second-guess the president’s emergency findings, and doing so disarms his ability to effectively negotiate with other countries. 

“President Trump has declared that these emergencies are country-killing and not sustainable, that they threaten the bedrock of our national and economic security and that fixing them will make America a strong, financially viable and respected country, again,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the justices. 

Justice Samuel Alito said little during the government’s presentation but seemed swayed that the emergency element of the statute lends itself to Trump’s case.  

“I know you dispute the fact that this is a real emergency; maybe it's not,” he said to Katyal. “But isn't it the very nature of an emergency provision that it is going to be more open ended?” 

But Justice Sonia Sotomayor expressed skepticism about the ability of Trump’s tariffs to withstand the “major questions doctrine,” a legal theory which holds that Congress must endow presidents with clear authorization to implement programs with vast economic and political significance. 

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority has invoked the major questions doctrine in several recent cases striking down Democratic presidents’ initiatives, including former President Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan. 

The Trump administration contends the doctrine doesn't apply to the foreign policy context, including Trump’s tariffs. Sotomayor, the most senior liberal justice, questioned if Biden could’ve then simply implemented debt cancellation by pointing to foreign policy concerns. 

“That's all Biden would have had to do with any of his programs?” the justice asked.

Since retaking office, Trump has repeatedly won before the conservative-majority Supreme Court. But those cases all involved emergency appeals, and Wednesday marks the first time the justices considered the underlying legal merits of one of Trump’s biggest second-term agenda items. 

Lower courts invalidated Trump’s tariffs but allowed them to remain in place until their legality is resolved.  

A loss for Trump at the Supreme Court could result in his administration being forced to refund billions of dollars in taxes to companies that imported products, though Americans who have paid inflated prices would likely not see that money return to their pockets.  

"So, a mess,” Barrett said of the possible refund rollout. 

Trump opted against attending Wednesday’s argument after flirting with the idea, but Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick attended, as did Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.). Comedian John Mulaney was also spotted. 

Asked how he thought the argument went as he left the courtroom, Bessent gave The Hill a thumbs up.