Supreme Court Questions Trump’s Authority on Global Tariffs
The U.S. Supreme Court justices raised serious doubts on Wednesday about the legality of President Donald Trump’s sweeping global tariffs — a case that could reshape both presidential powers and the global economy.
During a tense hearing, both conservative and liberal justices challenged the administration’s argument that Trump acted within his authority under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a law originally designed for true national emergencies. Several justices questioned whether Trump’s use of this law infringed upon Congress’s constitutional power to impose taxes and tariffs.
Despite skepticism, some conservative justices acknowledged that presidents traditionally hold significant authority in foreign affairs, hinting at a potential split decision in the court’s final ruling. The court currently has a 6–3 conservative majority.
The Core Legal Question
For over two and a half hours, justices pressed U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer on whether Trump’s long-term use of the IEEPA to impose open-ended tariffs required explicit congressional approval. This line of questioning focused on the “major questions doctrine,” which demands that any executive action with large-scale economic or political impact must be clearly authorized by Congress.
Lower courts previously ruled that Trump exceeded his authority by using IEEPA to impose tariffs on nearly all U.S. trading partners. These rulings came after businesses and twelve Democratic-led states sued the administration, arguing that the tariffs were unconstitutional and harmful to American industries.
Billions at Stake
The tariffs — essentially taxes on imported goods — could generate trillions of dollars in revenue over the next decade. Trump, however, insists that they strengthen America’s bargaining power in global trade negotiations. His administration has argued that removing them could invite “ruthless trade retaliation” from other nations, potentially threatening both economic and national security stability.
Clash Over Presidential Powers
Chief Justice John Roberts emphasized that the Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the power to impose taxes and tariffs. He questioned whether Trump’s broad use of emergency powers to impose long-term tariffs was consistent with that constitutional principle.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett challenged Sauer directly, asking whether any prior instance in history has interpreted the phrase “regulate importation” as granting a president tariff-imposing authority. Trump remains the first U.S. president to use IEEPA for tariffs, reflecting his broader pattern of testing the limits of executive power since returning to office.
Alternative Legal Paths
Even if the Supreme Court strikes down Trump’s use of IEEPA, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has said the administration could rely on other trade laws — such as Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 — to justify similar measures. Conservative Justice Samuel Alito also referenced this law as a potential backup authority during the hearing.
Trump’s tariffs, imposed since his return to the presidency in January, have reignited global trade tensions, unsettled markets, and added uncertainty to the world economy. Supporters argue the tariffs are necessary to protect American industries, while critics warn they risk triggering trade wars and higher consumer prices.
The Major Questions Doctrine
The “major questions doctrine” looms large over this case. This legal principle has previously been used by the Court to strike down major policies from Trump’s predecessor, Joe Biden. Several justices questioned whether IEEPA provides sufficient clarity for such economically significant actions.
Chief Justice Roberts pressed Sauer on why the doctrine shouldn’t apply to Trump’s tariffs, pointing out that IEEPA does not explicitly mention tariffs. Roberts argued that allowing presidents to impose unlimited tariffs could represent an unconstitutional expansion of executive power.
Sauer countered that the doctrine does not apply in foreign affairs. But Roberts and others raised concerns that the president’s power cannot override Congress’s constitutional role, especially when it comes to taxation.
Divided Court, Uncertain Outcome
Liberal justices, including Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, argued that Congress designed IEEPA to limit presidential power, not expand it. Kagan emphasized that taxation and foreign commerce are “quintessential” legislative powers.
Justice Neil Gorsuch warned that allowing Trump’s interpretation could erode the constitutional separation of powers, giving the executive branch unchecked control over trade and taxation.
Meanwhile, Justice Brett Kavanaugh signaled potential sympathy for Trump’s defense, referencing President Richard Nixon’s use of similar powers in the 1970s as precedent.
What’s Next
The Court’s decision — which could arrive sooner than usual given the case’s urgency — will determine not only the future of Trump’s tariffs but also the scope of presidential authority in economic and foreign affairs.
As of September, IEEPA-based tariffs have generated nearly $89 billion in collections. Historically, IEEPA was used to sanction foreign enemies or freeze assets during emergencies, not to impose tariffs. If the Court curtails Trump’s use of this law, it could set new limits on executive power and redefine how presidents wield emergency authority in trade and economic policy.
