President Donald Trump’s tariff authority just hit a judicial speed bump at the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Daily Caller reported that on Wednesday, in Washington, the Supreme Court heard arguments over Trump’s use of emergency powers to slap tariffs on imports, with justices showing clear doubts about the legal footing of these economic measures.
The case stems from Trump’s bold moves to impose tariffs, citing two emergencies: the fentanyl crisis, targeting Canada, China, and Mexico, and a swelling trade deficit, which led to the so-called “Liberation Day” tariffs with a baseline 10% rate on imports, escalating by country.
Solicitor General John Sauer stepped up to bat for the administration, arguing that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) gives Trump the right to “regulate importation,” which, in plain English, should cover tariffs.
But the justices weren’t buying it hook, line, and sinker, hammering Sauer with questions about whether Congress ever meant to hand over such sweeping economic power to the executive branch.
Legal doctrines like the major questions doctrine and the nondelegation doctrine loomed large, with the court wary of letting a president wield unchecked authority over something as hefty as national trade policy.
Justice Neil Gorsuch raised eyebrows by pointing out that this interpretation could let a future president justify tariffs over something as nebulous as a climate change “threat”—a notion Sauer admitted was possible, though he dismissed such a scenario as a “hoax” under Trump’s view.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett chimed in with a practical worry, asking, “If you win, tell me how the reimbursement process would work. Would it be a complete mess?” as she pondered the chaos of refunding companies if these tariffs get struck down.
That’s a fair point—untangling this economic web could be a bureaucratic nightmare, and it’s clear the court isn’t blind to the real-world fallout of their ruling.
Chief Justice John Roberts noted that even if tariffs are seen as a tax, they’re a “foreign-facing” one, tied directly to the president’s foreign affairs powers, and he didn’t shy away from acknowledging their effectiveness in past scenarios.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh dug into history, referencing President Richard Nixon’s 1971 tariff imposition of 10% on all imports under a precursor to IEEPA, a move upheld by an appeals court, questioning why Congress would allow a total trade shutdown but balk at a mere 1% tariff.
That’s a head-scratcher for sure—why give the president a sledgehammer but not a scalpel when it comes to trade policy?
Roberts also pointed out that the court didn’t pause the case, signaling they’re aware of the stakes and the proven impact of these tariffs in achieving specific goals on the global stage.
On the flip side, attorneys for small businesses and states challenging Trump’s tariffs faced their own barrage of tough questions, showing the justices aren’t just picking on one side of this economic tug-of-war.
At the end of the day, this case isn’t just about tariffs—it’s about whether Congress or the White House gets to call the shots on trade, and conservatives who value limited government should be watching closely to ensure power stays where the Constitution puts it, not where progressive overreach might nudge it.