Key Takeaways
• The Supreme Court on Wednesday heard a pivotal case that will determine whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) legally supports the Trump administration’s imposition of various tariffs.
• Arguments revealed skepticism among justices about using emergency declarations to bypass congressional checks, with multiple briefs and legal experts challenging the administration’s broad interpretation of IEEPA.
• While the conservative-majority court has often sided with the Trump administration in his second term, the probing questions suggest a possible shift. The final ruling, which the court is expected to release before the end of June, could redefine the limits of executive power in trade policy.
The Supreme Court has all the information it needs to decide the constitutionality of many of President Trump’s tariffs – but it could be a while until the justices reach a final ruling.
On Wednesday, the court heard a pivotal case to determine whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) authorizes the Trump administration to issue tariffs – notably the initial 10% base tariff, the targeted “reciprocal tariffs” and the “trafficked tariffs” designed to stop the alleged flow of illegal drugs into the U.S.
The Supreme Court’s tariff hearing concluded shortly before 1 p.m., with arguments spanning two-and-a-half hours. The justices posed several tough questions to both sides: the Trump administration and the businesses that brought the case. Media reports indicated that, during their questioning, most of the justices expressed reservations about the Trump administration’s declaration of emergencies to impose the tariffs without checks and balances. The Supreme Court’s 6-3 conservative majority has repeatedly sided with the Trump administration on issues brought to court during his second presidential term. However, the justices’ questioning signals a potential deviation from this trend.
In the courtroom, three lawyers representing small businesses, a group of 12 states and the Trump administration all presented arguments for or against the tariffs. Additionally, 44 “Friend of the Court” briefs were submitted by a diverse group of professionals, including legal and trade experts, Congress members, think tanks and individual businesses. The briefs covered topics reaching far and wide, from the business impact of Trump’s tariffs to the history of trade law.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer, who represented the Trump administration, argued that the language used in IEEPA affords the president broad powers (including the authority to impose tariffs) adding that the levies are necessary because of “country-killing trade deficits.”
In one significant brief, 207 members of Congress argued against the Trump administration’s interpretation of IEEPA, claiming it “would effectively nullify the guardrails set forth in every statute in which Congress expressly granted the president limited tariff authority – a result Congress did not intend.”
What Will the Future of Tariffs Look Like?
The Supreme Court Could Help Decide
This analysis from ASI Media explores the various potential outcomes of the Supreme Court case and what it could mean for promo businesses.
Other briefs turned their focus away from IEEPA and toward the other legal justifications Trump has used to enact tariffs. Erica Hashimoto, the director of the Georgetown University Law Center’s Appellate Litigation Clinic, submitted a brief that argued the tariffs are covered under a different trade law: Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. By that logic, Trump can impose tariffs but must comply with certain restrictions limiting the tariffs to 15% and 150 days.
America First Policy Institute, meanwhile, told the justices that Trump can impose tariffs up to 50% under another law – Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930. According to the think tank, which brands itself as a nonprofit research institute that puts American people first, it doesn’t matter that Trump relied on a different provision during his initial executive order. Section 338, the think tank asserts, allows the president to impose the tariffs without legal consequences.
Neal Katyal, the lawyer representing the businesses against tariffs, argued that IEEPA lacks the limits of other tariff statutes and reiterated that no U.S. president has ever imposed tariffs under this law. However, Justice Brett Kavanaugh repeatedly pointed out that a lower court had allowed former President Richard Nixon to issue tariffs under a similar law during his administration. Throughout the hearing, Kavanaugh expressed strong concerns about the limitation of presidential power during times of emergency.
Trump has already enacted a series of tariffs under Section 338 and Section 122, as well as Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, to impose levies on lumber, automobiles, steel and aluminum and more. The laws used to justify those tariffs, Katyal argued, place necessary limits on the president, whereas IEEPA lacks those restrictions. He also reiterated a common refrain: “Tariffs are taxes,” he said, and later added that “our founders gave that taxing power to Congress alone.”
Notably, Chief Justice John Roberts also said the imposition of taxes on Americans are a core power of Congress.
The court is expected to reach a final decision by the end of June, though it could be sooner.
