The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments this week over President Donald Trump’s use of emergency authority to impose tariffs on countries around the world.
The challenge was brought by Democrat-led states, several small businesses, and two Illinois toymakers. They claim that only Congress has the constitutional power to impose taxes or tariffs.
According to The Center Square, the businesses and states argue that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, known as IEEPA, does not mention the word “tariff” and has never been used to impose one. They say Trump exceeded presidential authority by acting without congressional approval.
Trump’s legal team says the law gives broad emergency powers. Solicitor General John Sauer told the justices that a “common sense” reading of the law’s power to “regulate importation” includes the power to impose tariffs, even if the word is not written into the statute. The Daily Caller reported that several justices immediately pushed back on that argument.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor told Sauer that tariffs function as taxes. She said only Congress has the power to tax Americans. “They’re generating money from American citizens,” she said.
The Trump administration imposed tariffs under two declared emergencies. The first cited the fentanyl crisis and placed tariffs on China, Mexico, and Canada in February. A second declaration in April created “Liberation Day” tariffs, with a baseline 10% duty on imports and higher rates for certain countries.
Chief Justice John Roberts pressed Sauer on why Congress chose not to use the word “tariff” in IEEPA. He noted that Congress has used that exact term in other trade laws. He warned that Sauer’s interpretation would give the president the power to impose tariffs on “any product, from any country, in any amount, for any length of time,” which he called “major authority.”
Two legal standards became central to the hearing. The major questions doctrine requires clear authorization from Congress before the executive branch takes major economic actions. The nondelegation doctrine restricts Congress from handing too much legislative power to the president.
Justice Neil Gorsuch warned that the administration’s legal theory would allow a future president to declare climate change an emergency and impose tariffs on auto parts. He called this a “one-way ratchet” that shifts power away from elected lawmakers and into the executive branch. Sauer responded that the Trump administration considers climate change a “hoax,” but conceded the legal authority could be used that way.
Still, lawyers challenging the tariffs also faced tough questions. Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked why IEEPA would allow a president to block all imports, the most extreme possible action, but not allow a smaller step like a tariff. Kavanaugh said that banning all imports but banning a 1% tariff would make little sense.
Businesses challenging Trump’s tariffs say American companies are paying the additional costs, not foreign governments. Some pass costs to consumers who are already dealing with inflation.
A previous court already ruled against Biden-era tariffs. Two lower courts have ruled against Trump’s tariffs as well. The Supreme Court’s ruling could set a major precedent that affects consumers, businesses, and presidential power for years.
Both sides agree that billions of dollars and major trade policies are at stake. Roberts also acknowledged tariffs have been effective in pressuring foreign nations during negotiations.
There is no timeline yet for a Supreme Court ruling, but the decision is expected to be one of the most important tests of presidential emergency powers in decades.