The Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority expressed deep skepticism on Wednesday regarding the legal foundation of President Donald Trump’s massive, unilaterally imposed global tariff regime, signaling a potential defeat for a cornerstone of the administration’s economic policy.
During more than two and a half hours of intense oral arguments, several conservative justices joined their liberal colleagues in sharply questioning the government’s claim that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) grants the President near-limitless authority to levy tariffs without specific Congressional approval.
The case, which legal experts have called the most significant dispute over presidential power to reach the high court in decades, centers on whether a 1977 law meant to address specific foreign threats can be interpreted to authorize broad, trillion-dollar import taxes—a power the U.S. Constitution explicitly grants to Congress.
The ‘Major Questions’ Doctrine in Play
The court’s line of questioning repeatedly invoked the “major questions” doctrine, a legal principle favored by the current majority that demands Congress speak clearly when delegating issues of vast economic and political significance to the executive branch.
- Chief Justice John Roberts pressed the administration’s Solicitor General on the extreme scope of the claimed power. He asked whether the government’s interpretation of IEEPA would allow the President to impose tariffs on “any product, from any country, in any amount, for any length of time.”
- Justice Neil Gorsuch, a conservative appointee, was the most direct in his wariness over the separation of powers. He wondered aloud, “What would prohibit Congress from just abdicating all responsibility to regulate foreign commerce—or, for that matter, declare war—to the president?”
- Justice Amy Coney Barrett also pressed the government on the sweeping nature of the action, noting that the IEEPA statute, which allows the President to “regulate… importation,” does not mention the word “tariff” or “tax.”
Attorneys for the small businesses and the coalition of states challenging the tariffs argued that the administration was attempting to bypass the Constitution by claiming extraordinary powers under a statute never before used to impose general duties.
The Financial and Political Stakes
The financial and political stakes are immense. If the Supreme Court rules against the administration, it could force the White House to withdraw all tariffs imposed under IEEPA—which have generated nearly $90 billion in revenue—and potentially trigger a massive refund process. The ruling would also fundamentally reshape the President’s ability to use trade duties as a primary foreign policy and economic tool.
The government’s lawyer, D. John Sauer, argued that the tariffs were a necessary means of “regulating trade” to counteract “global problem[s]” like trade imbalances and fentanyl trafficking, and should be viewed as an aspect of foreign policy where the courts traditionally defer to the President.
However, the skepticism from the conservative wing of the court suggests that the long-standing legal principle that Congress, not the President, holds the power of the purse and the power to tax, may ultimately outweigh the court’s general deference to executive authority on national security matters.
A final ruling in the high-stakes case is expected in the coming weeks or months, but the oral arguments sent a powerful signal that the judiciary may finally be drawing a line on the limits of presidential power.