Key US Supreme Court justices expressed skepticism about the legality of President Donald Trump’s far-reaching global tariffsin a case that could undermine its emblematic economic policy.
During the hearing held Wednesday in Washington, Three conservative justices questioned Trump’s use of an emergency powers law to raise tens of billions of dollars in tariffs a month.
Chief Justice John Roberts said the tariffs were a “taxation of Americans and that has always been the fundamental power of Congress.” Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, appointed by Trump, also asked skeptical questions, although all three analyzed the arguments made by opponents of the tariffs.
A decision against Trump could force refunds of more than $100 billion, eliminate a significant burden on U.S. importers who pay tariffs and weaken an indiscriminate tool the president has used against his trading partners. More broadly, it would represent by far the Supreme Court’s biggest setback against Trump’s claims to wield powers that far exceed those claimed by his predecessors in the White House.
Given the ultra-fast timetable that the Supreme Court has established thus far, A ruling could be issued as soon as the end of the year.
The case revolves around the April 2 tariffs, dubbed “Liberation Day” by Trump, which impose taxes of 10% to 50% on most U.S. imports, depending on the country of origin. Trump claims these tariffs are justified to address the long-standing national trade deficit. The dispute before the Supreme Court also covers other tariffs that Trump claims to have imposed on Canada, Mexico and China to combat fentanyl trafficking.
Questioned authority
Trump claims his tariffs are authorized by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, Ieepa, a law that gives the president a wide range of tools to address national security, foreign policy and economic emergencies. The Ieepa, as the law is known, does not mention tariffs among those powers, although a key provision states that the president can “regulate” the “importation” of goods to address a crisis.
Barrett questioned whether that phrase was enough to allow the president to implement tariffs.
“Can you point to any other place in the code or any other time in history when that phrase, along with ‘regulate importation,’ “Has it been used to confer authority to impose tariffs?” Barrett asked US Attorney General John Sauer, the government’s top lawyer before the Supreme Court.
Gorsuch expressed alarm at the scope of the Trump administration’s claim that Congress had delegated its constitutional authority over tariffs to the president.
According to the government’s logic, “What would stop Congress from simply abdicating all responsibility for regulating foreign trade—and, why not, for declaring war—and handing it over to the president?” Gorsuch asked Sauer.
The court is considering two separate lawsuits brought by small businesses, plus a third lawsuit brought by twelve Democratic state attorneys general. The three lower courts that have ruled on the matter have declared the tariffs illegal.
Should Trump lose, his administration officials say most of the tariffs could be imposed through other, more complex legal instruments. The tariffs Trump imposed on steel, aluminum and automobiles were set under a different law, so they are not directly affected.
