Global Tariffs Under Fire: Supreme Court Examines Trump’s Trade Powers

<p>The US Supreme Court on Wednesday cast fresh doubt on the legality of President Donald Trump&rsquo;s global tariff regime, raising questions that could reshape how much power presidents wield in international trade.&nbsp;</p>
<p>The justices, spanning both conservative and liberal camps, expressed deep scepticism about whether a decades-old law allows Trump to levy tariffs as freely as he has claimed, reported Reuters.</p>
<h2><strong>Testing the Limits of Presidential Power</strong></h2>
<p>The court heard over two and a half hours of arguments in what has become a defining test of Trump&rsquo;s executive authority. The case hinges on his use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law typically reserved for national emergencies, to justify tariffs on nearly every major trading partner. Lower courts had already ruled that Trump&rsquo;s use of IEEPA overstepped his authority, prompting the administration&rsquo;s appeal.</p>
<p>Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative, pointedly told the government&rsquo;s lawyer, US Solicitor General D John Sauer, that imposing tariffs amounts to taxing Americans, &ldquo;the core power of Congress.&rdquo;&nbsp;</p>
<p>He suggested the court might apply its &ldquo;major questions&rdquo; doctrine, which requires Congress to clearly authorise executive actions of great economic and political consequence. &ldquo;The justification is being used for a power to impose tariffs on any product, from any country, in any amount, for any length of time,&rdquo; Roberts said, calling it &ldquo;major authority&rdquo; that may not fit the law&rsquo;s original intent.</p>
<p>The justices&rsquo; concerns cut across ideological lines. Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson argued that Congress had designed IEEPA to limit, not expand, presidential power. &ldquo;It&rsquo;s pretty clear that Congress was trying to constrain the emergency powers of the president,&rdquo; she said.&nbsp;</p>
<p>Meanwhile, conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett challenged Sauer to cite any historical precedent for using the phrase &ldquo;regulate importation&rdquo; to justify imposing tariffs, an example he struggled to provide.</p>
<h2><strong>The Case for Trump&rsquo;s Tariffs</strong></h2>
<p>Trump, who has framed tariffs as both an economic weapon and a diplomatic tool, has urged the court to uphold his sweeping powers. He invoked IEEPA by declaring that America&rsquo;s trade deficits posed an &ldquo;unusual and extraordinary threat&rdquo; to national security, language normally used to justify sanctions or asset freezes against hostile nations. The administration argues that tariffs have strengthened the country&rsquo;s negotiating hand and protected jobs.</p>
<p>Sauer told the justices that removing the tariffs could lead to &ldquo;ruthless trade retaliation&rdquo; from other countries and weaken the United States economically and strategically.&nbsp;</p>
<p>Between February and September this year, tariffs brought in an estimated $89 billion in revenue, according to data from the US Customs and Border Protection agency.</p>
<p>Yet critics say Trump&rsquo;s trade war has alienated allies, disrupted global markets, and contributed to economic uncertainty. Twelve states, mostly Democratic-led, and several US businesses have challenged the tariffs, contending that the president has intruded on powers constitutionally reserved for Congress.</p>
<h2><strong>A Divided Bench, High Stakes Ahead</strong></h2>
<p>While Roberts&rsquo; questions reflected scepticism, other conservative justices signalled potential sympathy for Trump&rsquo;s case. Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted that President Richard Nixon had once imposed worldwide tariffs under IEEPA&rsquo;s predecessor law, suggesting some historical precedent. He remarked that &ldquo;foreign affairs is a core power of the executive,&rdquo; a point also raised by Roberts when questioning lawyer Neal Katyal, who represents the private business challengers.</p>
<p>Justice Neil Gorsuch, however, warned against granting presidents too much unchecked authority, asking, &ldquo;What would prohibit Congress from just abdicating all responsibility to regulate foreign commerce, or for that matter, declare war, to the president?&rdquo; His line of questioning reflected concerns about maintaining the constitutional balance of powers.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, typically takes months to issue rulings. But the administration has urged a swift decision. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who attended the hearing, told Fox Business he felt &ldquo;very, very optimistic&rdquo; after the arguments and said that if the ruling goes against Trump, other legal routes will be explored to preserve the tariffs.</p>