Updated November 5, 2025 at 6:29 PM EST
President Trump's claim of unilateral power to impose tariffs across the globe hit a wall of skepticism at the Supreme Court on Wednesday.
Over the course of an argument that lasted almost three hours, both the court's conservatives and liberals seemed doubtful about the legal authority underpinning Trump's signature economic policy.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing Trump, was first up to the lectern, telling the court that Trump imposed the tariffs to deal with two dire emergencies: a persistent trade imbalance and the flood of fentanyl entering the United States.
But the justices were openly doubtful about the president's claim that he has the power to impose tariffs under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act, known as IEEPA, a statute that, as Chief Justice John Roberts observed, says nothing about tariffs.
Sauer replied that the statute's terms are "capacious," not restrictive, and that Trump has inherent authority as president, under the Constitution, to deal with these national security and foreign affairs threats.
Roberts acknowledged that tariffs involve foreign affairs. But he noted that the statute, as interpreted by Trump, imposes taxes on Americans, and taxes have always been "the core power of Congress."
Under your theory, said Justice Sonia Sotomayor, President Biden could have declared an emergency under global warming, and that would have been enough to justify his environmental policy.
And Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked, "Can you to point to any other place in the code or any time in history where the phrase…'regulate importation' [the words in the statute] has been used to confer tariff-imposing authority?"
When Sauer repeated that emergency situations justify the Trump tariffs, Justice Elena Kagan replied caustically, "It turns out, we're in emergencies…all the time, about, like, half the world."
Justice Neil Gorsuch posed perhaps the most vociferous challenge to the solicitor general, contending that the president's position in essence, could cover anything, including the power to declare war specifically given to Congress in the Constitution.
"You're saying inherent authority in foreign affairs, all foreign affairs, to regulate commerce, duties, and tariffs and war. Its inherent authority all the way down, you say. Fine," he said. "Congress decides tomorrow, well, we're tired of this legislating business. We're just going to hand it all off to the president. What would stop Congress from doing that?"
Sauer replied that the court in past opinions has said that the president's powers apply with "much less force, more limited force."
Indeed, he said that Congress can always change the law, and take back the power he claims it ceded under the IEEPA statute. But Gorsuch wasn't buying the argument, noting that even if Congress passed a new law, the president could veto it, and it would take a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate to override the veto and prevail.
"As a practical matter," said Gorsuch, that would be impossible. "Congress can't get its power back once it is handed over to the president."
Next up to the lectern was lawyer Neal Katyal, representing those challenging the Trump tariffs. He noted that IEEPA has been in existence for 50 years and no other president has ever claimed that the statute grants him such unilateral power. Katyal got some tough questions from the justices, particularly about why the words in the law calling for the regulation of imports and licensing fees are not tariffs.
But the hardest question came from Justice Barrett, and that was about how to return the billions of dollars already paid by U.S. businesses in order to comply with the Trump tariffs.
"If you win, tell me how the reimbursement would work," asked Barrett. You said before that "the government promised reimbursement…How would that work? It seems to me like it could be a mess."
Katyal said there would be a variety of options, prompting this from Barrett: "So a mess."
A decision in the case could come more quickly than usual because both sides asked the court to expedite consideration of the case.
Copyright 2025 NPR
