Conservative Supreme Court Justices Skeptical of Trump’s Sweeping Unilateral Tariffs/ Newslooks/ WASHINGTON/ J. Mansour/ Morning Edition/ The U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative justices expressed doubt about Donald Trump’s sweeping use of emergency powers to impose tariffs. The high-stakes case could reshape executive authority over trade and determine the limits of presidential power. Critics argue the tariffs unlawfully bypass Congress, which holds the constitutional power to levy taxes.
Trump’s Tariff Powers on Trial Quick Looks
- Supreme Court justices voiced skepticism over Trump’s broad use of emergency powers for tariffs.
- The case challenges Trump’s interpretation of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
- Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch questioned whether Trump’s approach undermines congressional authority.
- The tariffs were imposed after Trump declared a national emergency over drug trafficking and later on a reciprocal basis.
- Lower courts struck down many of the tariffs, calling them an overreach of executive authority.
- Critics argue the law does not explicitly authorize tariffs and that no president has used it this way before.
- Small businesses say the economic uncertainty has pushed them to the brink of collapse.
- A ruling against Trump could force the government to issue refunds on $195 billion in tariff revenue.
- The case could reshape legal boundaries on presidential power and emergency declarations.
Deep Look: Supreme Court Conservatives Cast Doubt on Trump’s Sweeping Tariff Powers
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Supreme Court on Wednesday signaled deep skepticism over former President Donald Trump’s expansive use of emergency powers to unilaterally impose tariffs — a cornerstone of his economic and foreign policy agenda.
Conservative justices, including Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch, pressed Trump’s legal team during oral arguments, questioning whether the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) gives the president unchecked authority to impose taxes that traditionally fall under Congressional control.
“Has there ever been another instance in which a statute has used that language to confer the power [to impose tariffs]?” Barrett asked pointedly.
The outcome of the case could redefine the limits of executive power and have trillion-dollar implications for the U.S. economy and future trade policies.
A Constitutional Power Struggle Over Trade
At the heart of the case is whether Trump overstepped constitutional boundaries by using IEEPA to implement tariffs without clear Congressional authorization. The Constitution reserves the power to levy taxes and tariffs to Congress. Yet Trump argues that in national emergencies, the president can regulate importation, including setting tariffs.
The Trump administration imposed two key rounds of tariffs in 2025:
- In February, tariffs on Canada, China, and Mexico, following a declared emergency over drug trafficking.
- In April, sweeping “reciprocal” tariffs on most countries, aimed at leveling perceived trade imbalances.
These actions triggered lawsuits from Democratic-leaning states and small businesses, who argue that the tariffs were illegally enacted and have created economic instability.
Justices Raise Doubts About Executive Overreach
While the Supreme Court has previously shown restraint in limiting presidential authority — often siding with Trump on emergency orders — this case presented a more fundamental test of separation of powers.
Justice Gorsuch voiced concern that Trump’s interpretation would allow presidents to seize legislative functions, especially the power to raise revenue, which the Constitution clearly delegates to Congress.
This approach echoes the Court’s 2023 ruling that blocked President Joe Biden’s attempt to forgive $400 billion in student loans under a different emergency powers law. In that case, the justices invoked the “major questions doctrine,” requiring clear congressional authorization for sweeping actions with vast economic impact.
“If $400 billion was too much, what about $3 trillion?” one attorney for the challengers asked, referencing projected tariff revenues.
Small Businesses Warn of Economic Harm
Among the most vocal challengers are small business owners, who say the tariffs have disrupted supply chains and raised costs, putting them at risk of bankruptcy. Industries impacted range from plumbing supplies to women’s cycling apparel.
Lower courts have sided with these challengers, striking down large portions of Trump’s tariff regime as a misuse of IEEPA.
Trump Defends Tariffs as Foreign Policy Tool
Trump has defended the tariffs as essential to his strategy on foreign affairs and economic sovereignty, warning that a loss in court could cripple his economic legacy.
“This case is one of the most important in the country’s history,” Trump said earlier this year. “A ruling against us would be catastrophic for the economy.”
His legal team argues that trade policy is inherently linked to foreign diplomacy, an area where presidents have traditionally had broad discretion.
The Justice Department adds that concerns about the nondelegation doctrine — the idea that Congress cannot give away its core powers — don’t apply to the president in the same way they apply to administrative agencies.
Potential Consequences of a Ruling
If the Supreme Court rules against Trump, he could still impose tariffs under other trade laws, but those include stricter timelines and procedural checks, limiting the president’s ability to act unilaterally.
The ruling may also create significant financial implications. If the tariffs are deemed unlawful, the government may be forced to issue refunds on $195 billion in tariff revenue collected as of September.
Additionally, the decision would mark a defining moment in the ongoing struggle over how far presidents can go in asserting emergency powers — a question that has grown more urgent across administrations.
Trump’s Court Faces Its First Full Test
Though Trump helped shape the Court by appointing three justices, this is the first full-scale case where the Court must evaluate one of the core elements of his economic policy. Previous favorable rulings were short-term emergency actions that didn’t reach the full argument phase.
A final decision could take weeks or months, but the early tone from the bench suggests that even Trump’s allies on the Court may be unwilling to grant him unchecked trade authority.
You must Register or Login to post a comment.