Trump Warns of Catastrophe if Tariffs Are Struck Down/ Newslooks/ WASHINGTON/ J. Mansour/ Morning Edition/ President Donald Trump has asked the Supreme Court to urgently rule on his authority to impose tariffs, warning of “economic catastrophe” if they are struck down. Lower courts have ruled most of his emergency tariffs unlawful. The case could shape presidential trade powers for decades.
Trump Urges Supreme Court on Tariffs Quick Looks
- Trump administration asks SCOTUS to uphold tariff powers.
- Warns U.S. could face “economic catastrophe” if tariffs struck down.
- Appeals court ruled 7-4 against Trump’s broad tariff use.
- Tariffs have raised $159B since August, more than double last year.
- Businesses say tariffs hurt small firms and supply chains.
- IEEPA of 1977 at the heart of legal challenge.
- SCOTUS asked to decide within a week—unusually fast.
- Case affects tariffs on Canada, Mexico, China, EU, Japan.
- Congress traditionally controls tariffs, but delegated powers have grown.
- Some tariffs, like steel, aluminum, autos, and Biden’s China levies, not affected.
Trump Warns of Catastrophe if Tariffs Are Struck Down
Deep Look
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump is asking the Supreme Court to take up his tariff case on an emergency basis, warning that the U.S. could be on the “brink of economic catastrophe” if justices uphold a ruling that stripped him of broad authority under emergency powers law.
In a rare filing laced with near-apocalyptic language, the Solicitor General’s office urged the Court late Wednesday to quickly overturn a federal appeals court decision that found Trump’s use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) exceeded presidential authority.
Although the tariffs remain in place for now, the administration warned that delays could derail U.S. trade negotiations and force the government to refund billions to importers.
Tariffs at the Center of Trade and Politics
Since returning to office, Trump has used tariffs aggressively to pressure allies and rivals alike, targeting imports from Canada, Mexico, China, Japan, and the European Union. According to government data, tariff collections totaled $159 billion by late August, more than double last year’s figure.
Supporters argue the strategy has pushed foreign governments into trade talks and secured concessions. Critics, including small businesses, say the levies have raised costs, disrupted supply chains, and increased economic uncertainty.
“Unlawful tariffs are inflicting serious harm on small businesses and jeopardizing their survival,” said Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel at the Liberty Justice Center, which represents plaintiffs in the case.
Supreme Court Filing Raises the Stakes
Solicitor General D. John Sauer asked justices to decide within a week whether to hear the case, far faster than the typical Supreme Court timeline. Arguments, he proposed, could be held in November.
“The President and his Cabinet officials have determined that the tariffs are promoting peace and unprecedented economic prosperity,” Sauer wrote. Denying that authority, he added, would expose the U.S. to retaliation, weaken anti-fentanyl efforts, and undermine attempts to pressure Russia to end its war in Ukraine.
The filing underscored that both the Treasury, Commerce, and State Departments support the urgent request.
Legal Battle Over IEEPA
The plaintiffs, mostly importers and small businesses, have twice prevailed in court: first at the Court of International Trade, then at the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, where judges ruled 7-4 that Trump overstepped.
The majority held that the 1977 IEEPA was never meant to grant the president unrestricted power to impose tariffs, a role explicitly reserved for Congress by the Constitution. The dissent, however, said the law does empower presidents to restrict imports in times of declared emergency.
The decision specifically challenges two sets of tariffs: those announced in April 2025, and additional levies imposed in February on imports from Canada, China, and Mexico.
What’s Not Covered
Not all tariffs are at risk. Levies on steel, aluminum, autos, and Trump’s earlier China tariffs—maintained by former President Joe Biden—were imposed under separate legal authorities and are not part of the ruling.
Still, if Trump’s IEEPA-based tariffs are struck down, the government could be forced to refund billions already collected, posing a major fiscal hit.
High Stakes for U.S. Trade Policy
Beyond the economic impact, the case raises fundamental questions about executive power in trade policy. For decades, Congress has delegated tariff-setting authority to presidents, a trend Trump has maximized.
Administration officials say stripping that power now would leave the U.S. vulnerable in trade disputes and undermine ongoing negotiations. Critics argue unchecked presidential tariff authority undermines constitutional checks and balances.
For Trump, the decision could define one of his most significant tools in foreign and economic policy. For the Supreme Court—reshaped by Trump’s own appointments—it will be a pivotal test of how far presidential trade powers extend.
You must Register or Login to post a comment.