The Supreme Court appeared deeply skeptical Wednesday of President Donald Trump’s authority to impose sweeping tariffs under emergency powers, with conservative justices joining their liberal colleagues in sharply questioning the administration’s legal justification for duties that have generated nearly $90 billion in revenue.
During more than two and a half hours of oral arguments, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh all pressed Solicitor General D. John Sauer on whether a 1977 emergency powers law gives the president the authority to levy taxes on imported goods without congressional approval.
Roberts noted that “the imposition of taxes on Americans” has always “been the core power of Congress,” adding that while the duties deal with foreign powers, “the vehicle is imposition of taxes on Americans, and that has always been a core power of Congress.”
The chief justice also questioned whether the law at issue provides sufficient authority for such broad action. “The statute doesn’t use the word tariffs,” Roberts said, raising doubts about whether Trump’s interpretation fits the statutory language.
Gorsuch, whom Trump appointed to the court in 2017, raised concerns about the separation of powers implications of the administration’s position. “What would prohibit Congress from just abdicating all responsibility to regulate foreign commerce — or for that matter, declare war — to the president?” he asked Sauer.
The justice warned that accepting the administration’s argument would create “a one-way ratchet toward the gradual but continual accretion of power in the executive branch and away from the people’s elected representatives.”
Barrett, another Trump appointee, pressed Sauer on whether the law’s language granting presidents emergency power to “regulate importation” encompasses tariffs. “Can you point to any other place in the code or any other time in history where that phrase together ‘regulate importation’ has been used to confer tariff-imposing authority?” she asked.
Liberal Justice Elena Kagan told Sauer the law allows for various actions during emergencies but “just doesn’t have the one you want.”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted that Congress enacted the International Emergency Economic Powers Act in the 1970s specifically to constrain presidential authority. “It’s pretty clear that Congress was trying to constrain the emergency powers of the president in IEEPA,” she said. “So it seems a little inconsistent to say that we have to interpret a statute that was designed to constrain presidential authority consistent with an understanding that Congress wanted the president to have essentially unlimited authority.”
The case centers on two sets of tariffs Trump imposed early in his second term: reciprocal duties ranging from 10 percent to 50 percent on most countries worldwide, and separate 25 percent tariffs on some goods from Canada, China, and Mexico related to fentanyl trafficking. Trump cited the emergency powers law as his legal authority, declaring that sustained trade deficits and drug trafficking constituted national emergencies.
No previous president has used IEEPA to impose tariffs. Lower federal courts ruled that Trump exceeded his authority under both the statute and the Constitution, prompting both sides to ask the Supreme Court for a definitive ruling.
Sauer argued during Wednesday’s hearing that the tariffs are “regulatory” in nature rather than revenue-raising measures. “We don’t contend that what’s being exercised here is the power to tax, it’s the power to regulate foreign commerce,” he said. “These are regulatory tariffs, they are not revenue-raising tariffs. The fact that the raise revenue is only incidental.”
Neal Katyal, representing small businesses challenging the tariffs, opened his arguments by declaring that “tariffs are taxes” and noting the Constitution vested that power in Congress. He warned that if the government prevails, it would be “a one-way ratchet” from which Congress could never recover its authority.
The tariffs have become a centerpiece of Trump’s economic agenda and a key tool in his negotiations with foreign governments. On Tuesday, Trump called the case “literally, LIFE OR DEATH for our Country” in a post on Truth Social.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent attended Wednesday’s arguments alongside Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. Bessent previously indicated that if the Supreme Court rules against Trump’s use of IEEPA, the administration would attempt to reimpose tariffs using other legal authorities, though those methods have more limitations.
As of late September, IEEPA tariffs had generated approximately $89 billion in collections, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection. If the Supreme Court overturns the tariffs, the government could face demands to refund that revenue to businesses that paid the duties.
Barrett was the only justice to ask about the potential refund process. When she inquired whether reimbursements would be “a complete mess,” Katyal acknowledged the administrative process could take time but insisted mechanisms exist to handle refunds.
The Supreme Court took the case on an expedited basis, meaning a ruling could be issued relatively quickly. The outcome will not only determine the fate of billions of dollars in tariffs but also set important precedents for presidential power during declared emergencies.
The skepticism from conservative justices was particularly notable given the court’s track record of backing Trump on various policies since he took office in January. The 6-3 conservative majority has handed the administration several victories on emergency orders this year, though most involved temporary measures rather than fully argued cases.
The court has previously questioned expansive executive power claims, most notably when it blocked President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness program under a legal principle known as the major questions doctrine. Under that theory, a president cannot impose broad policies with huge impacts on society and the economy unless Congress passes a law that specifically allows for it.
Roberts raised whether the major questions doctrine might apply to Trump’s tariffs, noting “it seems it might be directly applicable.”
Beyond the specific tariffs challenged in this case, Trump has imposed additional duties on steel and aluminum using different legal authorities. Those tariffs are not at issue before the Supreme Court.
