The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday heard arguments concerning former President Donald Trump's implementation of tariffs, with several justices expressing doubts regarding the White House's rationale for the import duties. The case challenges the president's authority to impose these levies, which are being contested by small businesses and states. Billions of dollars in tariff payments are at stake, and the ruling could impact future presidential actions regarding trade.
Hearing Details and Justices' Questions
During the hearing, a majority of justices, including conservatives, questioned the justification provided by the White House for the tariffs. Justice Amy Coney Barrett inquired about the broad application of the "reciprocal tariff policy," 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? 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."
Chief Justice John Roberts highlighted the potential scope of the power if the administration's arguments were upheld, stating, "The justification is being used for power to impose tariffs on any product from any country in any amount, for any length of time." Justice Neil Gorsuch raised concerns about the separation of powers, asking, "What would prohibit Congress from just abdicating all responsibility to regulate foreign commerce?" He also posed a hypothetical: "Could the president impose a 50 percent tariff on gas-powered cars and autoparts to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat from abroad of climate change?"
Justice Sonia Sotomayor directly addressed the administration's solicitor general, stating, "You want to say that tariffs are not taxes but that's exactly what they are." Conversely, Justice Brett Kavanaugh questioned the practicality of limiting presidential power, noting it did not seem "common sense" to grant the president the power to block trade entirely but not to impose a minor tariff.
Legal Basis and Administration's Arguments
The case revolves around the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977, a law granting the president authority to "regulate" trade in response to an emergency. Former President Trump first invoked IEEPA in February to impose tariffs on goods from China, Mexico, and Canada, citing drug trafficking as an emergency. In April, he used the act again to impose 10% to 50% levies on goods from numerous countries, citing the U.S. trade deficit as an "extraordinary and unusual threat."
The Trump administration argued that the power to regulate trade under IEEPA includes the authority to impose tariffs. Solicitor General John Sauer, representing the administration, stated that the nation faced "country-killing and not sustainable" crises that necessitated emergency presidential action. Sauer warned that invalidating the president's tariff powers could lead to "ruthless trade retaliation" and "ruinous economic and national security consequences." He further argued that the power to raise revenue through tariffs was "only incidental" to their regulatory purpose.
Challengers' Arguments
Lawyers representing the challenging states and private groups assert that the IEEPA law does not explicitly mention "tariffs." They contend that Congress did not intend to grant the president an expansive power to override existing trade agreements and tariff regulations. Neil Katyal, arguing for private businesses, stated that while the law allows the president to impose embargoes or quotas to restrict trade, a revenue-generating tariff exceeded this authority.
The justices focused primarily on the text and history of IEEPA. While previous presidents have used IEEPA for sanctions, former President Trump was the first to invoke it for tariffs.
Potential Implications and White House Response
Billions of dollars in tariff revenue collected by the government are at stake. If the Supreme Court rules against the administration, the government might be required to refund these collected funds, a process Justice Barrett described as potentially becoming a "complete mess."
White House officials, including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, attended the hearing. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt stated ahead of the hearing that the administration is preparing for "Plan B" and would explore other tariff authorities if the court does not rule in its favor.