Trump’s Tariff Powers Face Heat in US Supreme Court, Judges Question Emergency Authority
In a high-stakes hearing in Washington, the US Supreme Court on Thursday sharply questioned former President Donald Trump’s sweeping use of emergency powers to impose tariffs — a move that has reshaped global trade and hit American importers hard.
The case, Learning Resources v. Trump, challenges whether Trump legally used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to levy steep “reciprocal tariffs” on multiple countries, including India, China, Japan, and the EU.
Over nearly three hours of arguments, a majority of justices signaled doubts about the legality of Trump’s move, raising concerns about executive overreach and whether tariffs imposed under the guise of “emergency action” were constitutional.
Tariffs or Taxes? Supreme Court Seeks Clarity
A central question before the court was whether tariffs — which increase costs on imported goods and are ultimately paid by American businesses — should be treated as taxes.
If they are, legal authority belongs to Congress, not the President, under the US Constitution.
Chief Justice John Roberts asked whether the law allowed a president to impose tariffs “on any product, from any country, in any amount, for any length of time,” calling such a broad interpretation “a stretch.”
Even Trump-appointed justices Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch pressed the government to explain how IEEPA justified tariff-making — a power historically reserved for Congress.
Where Is the Emergency?
Trump argued that the tariffs were needed to fight crises like fentanyl trafficking and large trade deficits.
But the justices questioned whether these issues qualify as “emergencies,” noting:
- The fentanyl crisis has existed for decades
- The US has run trade deficits since the 1970s
Legal experts say the court appears skeptical that long-standing economic issues can trigger emergency powers.
Huge Stakes for Trade and Policy
Every lower court has ruled against Trump’s tariff use so far.
A Supreme Court loss would force the White House to dismantle its emergency tariff structure and could trigger up to $100 billion in refunds to US importers, according to government estimates.
India, one of the hardest-hit partners with 50% tariff exposure, saw exports to the US drop 12% in September.
A ruling against Trump could also disrupt trade agreements made with allies like the EU, Japan, South Korea, and the UK — deals negotiated under the threat of US tariff pressure.
Alternate Legal Paths Still Open
If the Supreme Court strikes down IEEPA-based tariffs, Trump could still try tariff actions through:
- Section 122 (tariffs up to 15% for 150 days)
- Section 232 (national security-based tariffs)
- Section 301 (targeted retaliation for unfair trade practices)
But these options are narrower and would limit presidential power.
Decision Expected Soon
The court, which typically takes months to decide major constitutional matters, is expected to rule faster given global trade implications.
A decision against Trump would mark a historic curb on presidential authority in trade, reaffirming Congress’s taxation power.
A ruling in his favor would dramatically expand executive trade power — reshaping America’s economic governance for years.
#USTariffs #TrumpCase #SupremeCourt #IEEPA #TariffPowers #GlobalTrade #USCongress #TradeWar #IndiaUSRelations #EconomyWatch #LegalBattle #ExecutivePower #BreakingNews
