U.S. Supreme Court justices on Wednesday cast doubt on the legality of President Donald Trump’s sweeping global tariffs, in a high-stakes case that could reshape the balance of power between the White House and Congress and reverberate through the global economy.
During more than two and a half hours of arguments, both conservative and liberal justices sharply questioned the Trump administration’s reliance on the International
Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law designed for national emergencies, to justify tariffs imposed on nearly all major U.S. trading partners.
Chief Justice John Roberts challenged U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, who argued for the administration, saying that tariffs are “the imposition of taxes on Americans,” a “core power of Congress.”
Roberts suggested the court could apply its “major questions” doctrine, which requires explicit congressional authorization for executive actions of vast economic or political importance.
“The justification is being used for a power to impose tariffs on any product, from any country, in any amount, for any length of time,” Roberts said, noting the sweeping nature of Trump’s move.
Several justices questioned whether IEEPA, historically used to freeze assets or impose sanctions on adversaries, was ever intended to authorize broad trade tariffs.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked Sauer if he could cite any precedent where the phrase “regulate importation” conferred tariff-imposing authority.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson went further, asserting that Congress had sought to limit presidential powers through IEEPA, not expand them.
The case stems from challenges by businesses and 12 states, mostly Democratic-led, arguing that Trump’s use of IEEPA to impose tariffs exceeded his authority. Lower courts had previously sided with the challengers, prompting the administration’s appeal.
Trump’s tariffs, which have generated about $89 billion in collections since February, were imposed after he declared trade deficits a national emergency threatening U.S. economic and national security.
Sauer defended the move, warning that overturning the tariffs could expose the U.S. to “ruthless trade retaliation” and undermine Trump’s leverage in global negotiations.
While some conservative justices appeared sympathetic to the administration’s argument that presidents hold inherent authority in foreign affairs, others expressed concern over executive overreach.
Justice Neil Gorsuch questioned whether granting such sweeping power could allow Congress to “abdicate all responsibility to regulate foreign commerce, or even declare war, to the president.”
Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted that President Richard Nixon had imposed global tariffs under a predecessor statute in the 1970s, suggesting some historical precedent for Trump’s actions.
Still, the court’s questioning reflected deep divisions over the extent of presidential power.
A ruling against Trump could sharply curtail his use of emergency authority to influence trade and would mark a rare rebuke from a court that has often upheld his executive actions.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who attended the hearing, said afterward he remained “very, very optimistic” and indicated that the administration would turn to other legal avenues to preserve the tariffs if necessary.
The Supreme Court is expected to issue its decision in the coming months, a ruling that could redefine the limits of presidential power over trade and reshape U.S. economic policy worldwide.
Source: Reuters
Written By Rodney Mbua
