Supreme Court Justices Question Legality of Trump’s Tariff Powers
Bipartisan skepticism emerges over emergency law to justify sweeping trade duties
The Supreme Court appeared deeply skeptical Wednesday of President Donald Trump’s expansive use of emergency powers to impose tariffs on imports from more than 100 countries — a move that several justices suggested may have exceeded his constitutional authority.
During a three-hour session, both conservative and liberal justices pressed Solicitor General D. John Sauer, who defended the tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977, a statute originally intended for sanctions, not revenue collection.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, viewed as a pivotal vote, questioned the scope of Trump’s “reciprocal tariffs,” describing them as “across the board.” She asked, “Is it your contention that every country needed to be tariffed because of threats to the defense and industrial base? I mean, Spain? France?”
Justice Neil Gorsuch warned that Trump’s interpretation risked creating “a one-way ratchet toward the continual accretion of power in the executive branch and away from the people’s elected representatives.”
Debate over “emergency” justification. At issue is whether the White House lawfully invoked IEEPA to impose tariffs of 10% to 50% — including 39% on Switzerland — citing trade deficits and fentanyl flows as “unusual and extraordinary threats.” Trump called the case “LIFE OR DEATH for our Country” on social media, arguing that without emergency powers the United States is “defenseless against other countries who have taken advantage of us.”
But critics, including 12 states and hundreds of small businesses, counter that IEEPA was never intended to authorize tariffs. The statute contains no mention of “duties” or “taxes,” and challengers argue that the word “regulate” cannot be stretched to justify multitrillion-dollar revenue measures.
Economists, including researchers at the Dallas Federal Reserve, noted that U.S. trade deficits have persisted for decades and do not constitute an “emergency” as the law defines it.
Sharp exchanges inside the Court. Justice Sonia Sotomayor refocused the debate on constitutional principles: “The Constitution is structured so that if I’m going to be asked to pay for something as a citizen, it’s through a bill generated through Congress… I’m not going to be taxed unless both houses and the executive have made that choice.”
Justice Brett Kavanaugh pushed back slightly, calling tariffs a potentially “lesser tool” than a full trade embargo, which the president could impose under IEEPA. His quip about a “doughnut hole” in the statute drew laughter, with Oregon Solicitor General Benjamin Gutman, arguing for the states, replying: “It’s not a doughnut hole — it’s a different kind of pastry.”
Kavanaugh and Gorsuch said the tariffs could be allowed under IEEPA’s language saying the president can regulate economic activity “by means of instructions, licenses, or otherwise,” with Gorsuch repeatedly saying licensing fees are “basically the same thing as tariffs.”
Economic stakes and global implications. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has warned that if the tariffs are struck down, the government could owe more than $750 billion in refunds, potentially disrupting global trade deals. Sauer told the Court that reversal could lead to “economic ruin akin to the Great Depression.”
Corporate leaders abroad are also watching closely. Alexander Lacik, CEO of Pandora, said from Copenhagen that the 19% tariffs on Thai jewelry were “a nuisance,” adding, “If somebody would say that’s illegal and it’s going to be removed, I’ll be applauding that decision.”
A legal and political crossroads. This is the first major test of President Trump’s emergency trade powers during his second term — and perhaps the most consequential constitutional challenge to his economic agenda. Lower courts have already ruled against him, including a 7–4 decision by the Federal Circuit declaring that Congress never intended IEEPA to delegate tariff authority.
Still, Justices Samuel Alito and Kavanaugh hinted that some limited use of IEEPA for modest duties might survive judicial scrutiny.
Legal analysts note that the administration could pivot to Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, which allows tariffs on national security grounds but with narrower scope and oversight.
A ruling is expected later this term. For now, as Justice Gorsuch warned, the Court’s decision could determine “whether Congress has permanently handed over one of its core constitutional powers — the power to tax — to the executive branch.”
