Supreme Court Tees Up First Possible Ruling on Trump Tariffs
Justices set Friday opinion day, opening the door to a landmark decision on the president’s “Liberation Day” trade levies
The U.S. Supreme Court has scheduled Friday, Jan. 9. as an opinion day, making it the first opportunity for the justices to issue a ruling on President Donald Trump’s sweeping global tariffs.
While the court never discloses in advance which cases will be decided, the expedited handling of the tariff challenge has fueled expectations that a decision could be imminent. The case centers on Trump’s April 2 “Liberation Day” tariffs, which imposed duties of 10% to 50% on most imports, along with additional levies on Canada, Mexico, and China tied to fentanyl trafficking concerns.
A ruling against the administration would strike at the heart of Trump’s signature economic policy and represent his most significant legal setback since returning to the White House. During oral arguments on Nov. 5, several justices appeared skeptical that a 1977 emergency-powers statute gives the president authority to impose such broad tariffs.
Trump has publicly urged the court to uphold his powers, telling House Republicans that the president “has to be able to wheel and deal with tariffs.”
Friday’s opinion day could also bring decisions in other high-profile cases, including a major redistricting dispute that could shape control of Congress in the 2026 midterm elections by narrowing how the Voting Rights Act can be used to create majority-Black or Hispanic districts.
The announcement coincides with the justices’ return from a four-week holiday recess, setting the stage for a potentially consequential end to the week for trade, politics, and election law.
| Supreme Court Nears Decision on Trump’s Tariffs, Testing Limits of Emergency Trade PowersJustices signal skepticism that a 1977 emergency law allows sweeping global tariffs, raising stakes for Trump’s core economic strategy The U.S. Supreme Court is poised to rule soon on the legality of President Donald Trump’s sweeping global tariffs, a decision that could reshape U.S. trade policy and the balance of power between Congress and the White House. At issue is whether Trump lawfully invoked a national security emergency under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs on nearly all U.S. trading partners. During November oral arguments, justices across ideological lines questioned whether IEEEPA authorizes tariffs at all, noting the statute allows presidents to “regulate” imports but does not explicitly mention tariffs. Trump has defended the levies as central to U.S. security and prosperity, warning that losing tariff authority would be “a terrible blow” to the country. The tariffs are a defining feature of his second-term agenda, and the court’s ruling is expected to carry global consequences, potentially affecting billions of dollars in trade flows. Core legal fight. Lower courts — the U.S. Court of International Trade and the Federal Circuit — have already ruled that Trump exceeded his authority. The administration is asking the Supreme Court of the United States to reverse those decisions. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued tariffs are a traditional tool to regulate imports and address what the administration calls a national emergency stemming from trade deficits, industrial decline, and defense vulnerabilities. Skepticism from the bench. Several justices pushed back. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Sonia Sotomayor emphasized that tariffs function as taxes, a power constitutionally reserved for Congress. Justice Neil Gorsuch warned that accepting the administration’s theory could allow future presidents to declare virtually any issue an “emergency” and impose sweeping tariffs with little constraint. Arguments for preserving tariff power. Some conservatives raised concerns about weakening presidential leverage if the tariffs are struck down. Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested tariffs can be part of a broader diplomatic toolkit, citing their use in pressuring countries such as India in connection with geopolitical crises. Other justices flagged the administrative and financial chaos that could follow an invalidation, including potential refunds of tariffs—more than $200 billion collected in 2025 alone. Plan B if IEEPA falls. Observers say the administration is already preparing alternatives. Possible fallback authorities include: •Section 232 (Trade Expansion Act of 1962): National-security tariffs following Commerce Department investigations. • Section 301 (Trade Act of 1974): Tariffs responding to unfair trade practices after USTR probes. • Section 122 (Trade Act of 1974): Short-term, capped tariffs to address balance-of-payments problems. •Section 338 (Tariff Act of 1930): A rarely used tool allowing reciprocal tariffs against discriminatory countries. Analysts note these routes are slower and more procedurally constrained than IEEEPA, potentially blunting the speed Trump has favored in trade negotiations. What comes next: If the court strikes down the IEEEPA tariffs, experts expect the administration to continue pressing legally and politically, leaning on other statutes while seeking to preserve leverage in ongoing trade talks with Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. The ruling will not only determine the fate of Trump’s tariffs but also clarify how far future presidents can go in using emergency powers to reshape global trade. |
