President Donald Trump has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to deliver an urgent ruling on his power to impose tariffs, warning that billions of dollars and America’s economic leverage abroad are on the line.
The request follows a 7-4 decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which ruled that Trump exceeded his authority under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
That law, historically used to impose sanctions on hostile nations, had never before been used to levy tariffs. Trump relied on it to impose sweeping duties on imports, which he argued were necessary to protect U.S. industries, reduce trade deficits, and curb the flow of fentanyl and other illicit drugs.
The administration urged the high court to fast-track the case, asking justices to decide by September 10 whether they will take it up, with arguments possible as early as November.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer stressed the importance of the decision, writing, “The stakes in this case could not be higher.” He said the tariffs had promoted peace and “unprecedented economic prosperity” while serving as leverage in negotiations with foreign nations.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent warned that striking them down could force the government to refund $159 billion collected since late August.
Trump has made tariffs a central pillar of his foreign and economic policy, using them to pressure countries like China, Canada, and Mexico and to renegotiate trade agreements.
Supporters say the approach defends American jobs and industries, while critics argue it has sparked global economic uncertainty and harmed small businesses.
Jeffrey Schwab, an attorney for the Liberty Justice Center representing business challengers, said the duties have been devastating for many entrepreneurs.
“These unlawful tariffs are inflicting serious harm on small businesses and jeopardizing their survival,” Schwab said. A coalition of states, including New York, Illinois, and Oregon, also joined in lawsuits claiming the Constitution grants tariff powers to Congress, not the president.
Legal experts note the appeals court’s decision leaned on the Supreme Court’s “major questions” doctrine, which requires clear congressional authorization for executive actions with vast economic or political impact.
By rejecting Trump’s broad interpretation of IEEPA, the court signaled that the president’s ability to unilaterally impose tariffs has limits.
The outcome now rests with the Supreme Court. A ruling in Trump’s favor would cement presidential power over trade negotiations, while a loss could reshape the balance of power between Congress and the White House and trigger a wave of refund demands from importers.
For Trump, the case goes beyond policy.
It strikes at the core of how much authority a president has to act decisively in global economic battles. And as his administration warned in its appeal, the decision “casts a pall of uncertainty” over foreign negotiations that depend on tariffs as leverage.