The U.S. Supreme Court held a crucial hearing on November 5 to examine the legality of President Donald Trump’s tariffs, imposed under a 1977 emergency economic law.
The court’s conservative majority expressed serious doubts about whether Trump had the authority to levy these tariffs, which cover imports from over 100 countries and have generated billions in revenue.
Challengers—including small businesses and a coalition of states—argue that Trump exceeded his powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a law meant to address genuine emergencies. They maintain the tariffs function as taxes, which only Congress can impose.
Chief Justice John Roberts highlighted that unlike other statutes where Congress explicitly authorised tariff hikes, IEEPA does not provide such authority. He noted the tariffs impose costs borne by American consumers and generate government revenue, raising constitutional concerns.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned the justification for applying tariffs so broadly, asking “And so is it your contention that every country needed to be tariffed because of threats to the defense and industrial base? I mean, Spain? France?” and “I could see it with some countries but explain to me why as many countries needed to be subject to the reciprocal tariff policy as are.”
Barrett also pointed out practical problems that could arise if the government were forced to return billions collected from tariffs deemed unlawful.
Solicitor General John Sauer defended Trump’s actions, stating the tariffs respond to “extraordinary and unusual threats” posed by the U.S. trade deficit and highlighted the risks of retaliatory trade measures if the powers were invalidated. Yet, several justices questioned the sweeping nature of this argument.
Justice Neil Gorsuch asked whether such a ruling would allow Congress to abdicate all responsibility for regulating foreign trade, and if the president could impose tariffs to tackle climate change, illustrating the potential far-reaching impact.
The distinction between tariffs and taxes proved contentious. Sauer insisted, “It is a regulatory tariff, not a tax,” while Justice Sonia Sotomayor contested, “That’s exactly what they are.”
Justice Brett Kavanaugh shared doubts about granting broad tariff powers without clear limits.
This case carries enormous economic and constitutional significance, with trillions potentially at stake should the tariffs be upheld or invalidated. The court’s decision will not only resolve a major dispute over executive power but also shape U.S. trade policy and the balance of powers between Congress and the presidency.