Ask Onix
Supreme Court questions Trump's sweeping tariffs in pivotal trade case
The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday scrutinized President Donald Trump's use of broad tariffs, with several justices-including conservatives-expressing skepticism about the administration's legal justification for imposing the import duties. The case, seen as a critical test of presidential authority, could reshape trade policy and trigger billions in refunds if the tariffs are struck down.
Justices probe legal limits of emergency trade powers
The hearing centered on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law invoked by Trump to impose tariffs on goods from nearly every country, citing national security threats. Trump first used the law in February to target China, Mexico, and Canada over drug trafficking, then expanded it in April, arguing the U.S. trade deficit posed an "extraordinary and unusual threat."
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee, questioned the breadth of the policy: "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?" She pressed the administration's lawyer to explain why so many nations were included.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Neil Gorsuch voiced concerns about the precedent a ruling in Trump's favor might set. Roberts noted the administration's argument could grant the president "power to impose tariffs on any product from any country in any amount, for any length of time," while Gorsuch asked what would stop Congress from "abdicating all responsibility to regulate foreign commerce."
Administration defends tariffs as 'regulatory,' not taxes
Solicitor General John Sauer, representing the White House, argued that tariffs were a "regulatory" tool under IEEPA, not a tax-despite their revenue-generating effect. "I can't say it enough-it is a regulatory tariff, not a tax," Sauer insisted, though Justice Sonia Sotomayor countered: "You want to say that tariffs are not taxes, but that's exactly what they are."
The administration warned that invalidating the tariffs could expose the U.S. to "ruthless trade retaliation" and "ruinous economic and national security consequences." Trump, speaking on Fox News after the hearing, called the case "one of the most important in the history of our country" and predicted "devastating" consequences if the court ruled against him.
Businesses and states challenge 'open-ended power'
A coalition of small businesses and states argued the law never intended to grant the president such sweeping authority. Neil Katyal, representing private companies, said IEEPA allows embargoes or quotas but not revenue-raising tariffs. "Congress did not give the president an open-ended power to junk existing trade deals," he told the court.
Outside the court, Sarah Wells, CEO of Sarah Wells Bags, described how her business paid $20,000 in unexpected tariffs, forcing layoffs and halted production. "I think they really understood the overreach," she said of the justices, adding she was encouraged by their questions.
Billions at stake as court weighs historic decision
The case involves an estimated $90 billion in tariffs already collected-roughly half of U.S. tariff revenue this year-with analysts warning the figure could balloon to $1 trillion if the court delays its ruling until June. A decision against the administration could require refunds, which Justice Barrett called a "complete mess."
The hearing, originally slated for two hours, stretched to nearly three, reflecting the case's complexity. The court's 6-3 conservative majority offers no clear prediction of the outcome, though the justices' probing questions suggested deep divisions over the balance of power between the presidency and Congress.
What's next
The Supreme Court typically takes months to rule on major cases, but the high stakes-financial, political, and constitutional-could accelerate the timeline. A ruling in Trump's favor would overturn three lower-court decisions against the tariffs, while a loss could force the administration to pivot to alternative legal authorities for trade policy.
