Supreme Court Expresses Concerns Over Trump’s Tariff Powers
On Wednesday, a number of justices from the Supreme Court showed apprehension regarding President Trump’s utilization of emergency powers to implement high tariffs on foreign goods.
Judges from both Republican and Democratic backgrounds probed representatives of the administration with incisive questions concerning Trump’s application of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to levy tariffs on various countries.
During a discussion with Attorney General John Sauer about the 1977 legislation, conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch raised concerns, noting that, “As a practical matter, once Congress hands over this power to the president, it cannot be taken back.” He added, “This is a unilateral move that gradually but continuously strengthens power in the executive branch and moves it away from the people’s elected representatives.”
The lawsuit at hand specifically targets the IEEPA tariffs, which Trump has used to apply broad, flat taxes, including a 10% base tax and an extra 10% on China for its involvement in fentanyl trafficking into the U.S.
Signaling the case’s significance for the administration, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent was present for the oral arguments.
Bessent remarked, “Delaying a decision until June 2026 could cause significant disruption to the $750 billion to $1 trillion in tariffs that have already been collected,” anticipating a swift ruling from the justices.
As of September 30, the IEEPA tariffs have generated around $90 billion, based on data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
This law grants the president emergency powers to “investigate, interdict pending investigation, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, block or prohibit” international commerce and is central to the trade deals Trump has made with numerous countries.
It’s worth noting that the wording of the law does not mention “tariff,” and Trump is the only president to have utilized it for this purpose.
Attorney General Sauer argued that the phrasing “regulate imports” in IEEPA clearly accommodates tariffs as traditional indirect methods of import regulation and allows for quotas and similar practices.
Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor countered this by noting that “Congress has always used the words ‘regulation’ and ‘tax’ together in the code,” questioning if Sauer believed the reference to taxation was redundant. Sauer defended that IEEPA is a distinct law with a “specific historical pedigree.”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson remarked, “As I understand it, IEEPA is designed and intended to limit the power of the President,” suggesting Congress aimed to constrict presidential emergency powers based on past experiences with the Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA) of 1917.
Chief Justice John Roberts noted that taxing Americans is fundamentally a congressional power and seemed to be concerned about the broad authority the law grants the president regarding tariffs, hinting at a need for legislative approval for such significant economic decisions.
Judge Amy Coney Barrett questioned Sauer about past instances where “regulate imports” was cited to justify tariff authority, pointing to TWEA as a precedent used by President Nixon in 1971 for a 10% emergency tariff on all imports.
During discussions with lawyers challenging Trump’s authority, Barrett addressed a provision in IEEPA that allows the president to regulate commerce through licensing, asking if fees could be imposed under this law.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh explored a notion presented by the Trump administration that the plaintiffs suggest there’s a gap in the law allowing for trade suspension but not tariff imposition, questioning the logic behind such a stipulation.
Conservative Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas appeared to align more closely with the Trump administration’s stance, with Alito pondering if tariffs could be justified in response to an imminent threat of war from a powerful adversary reliant on U.S. trade.
The possibility of reversing tariffs, should the Supreme Court side against the administration, was acknowledged as potentially chaotic by Barrett.
If Trump were to lose, senior trade adviser Peter Navarro suggested the president might rely on other authorities, such as Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, to temporarily reinstate some tariffs.
This act permits the U.S. Trade Representative to impose tariffs or import restrictions if it’s determined that foreign state practices are unreasonable and restrict U.S. commerce.
Previous rulings from two lower courts concluded that Trump lacks the authority to impose “trafficking” and “reciprocal” tariffs under IEEPA. A verdict from the Supreme Court is expected by the end of June.
