President Donald Trump’s extensive use of tariffs faced rigorous questioning at the Supreme Court on Wednesday, in a case that could redefine presidential authority and reshape U.S. trade policy. Several conservative justices questioned the administration’s defense of the import duties, which Trump argued were necessary to revive American manufacturing and correct trade imbalances.
Small businesses and several states challenged the tariffs, claiming the president exceeded his authority by imposing what they described as an unlawful tax. With a 6–3 conservative majority, the Supreme Court typically takes months to issue major rulings, but observers expect a faster decision in this politically charged case.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, one of Trump’s appointees, pressed the administration’s lawyers on the broad scope of the tariffs. “Do you contend that every country posed a threat to our defense and industrial base? Spain? France?” she asked. “I can see it with some, but not all.”
Billions of dollars in tariff payments are at stake. If the administration loses, the government may have to refund large sums already collected—a process Barrett warned could become “a complete mess.”
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer attended the hearing. Officials said the White House had alternative legal options if the court ruled against it. “The White House is always preparing for Plan B,” said press secretary Karoline Leavitt before the hearing.
Later, Trump told Fox News the hearing “went very well.” He warned that losing the case would be “devastating for the country” and called it “one of the most important in American history.”
The Emergency Law Behind the Case
The dispute centers on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law that allows presidents to regulate trade during national emergencies. Trump first used it in February to impose tariffs on China, Mexico, and Canada, citing drug trafficking as an emergency.
In April, he expanded the tariffs to apply duties from 10% to 50% on goods from nearly every country. He argued that the U.S. trade deficit itself posed an “extraordinary and unusual threat.” The tariffs rolled out in stages while the administration pushed foreign governments to negotiate new trade deals.
The administration argued that the power to regulate trade includes the authority to impose tariffs. Solicitor General John Sauer warned that invalidating Trump’s actions could expose the U.S. to “ruthless trade retaliation” and “ruinous economic and national security consequences.” He described the crises as “country-killing and unsustainable.”
Justices Examine Limits on Executive Power
The justices questioned the broad reach of presidential authority. “The justification allows tariffs on any product, from any country, at any rate, for any period,” said Chief Justice John Roberts.
Under the Constitution, Congress—not the president—controls taxation. Courts have long limited how much of that authority lawmakers can delegate. Justice Neil Gorsuch asked, “What would prevent Congress from giving away all responsibility for regulating foreign commerce?” He admitted he was “struggling” to accept the administration’s argument.
Gorsuch also presented a scenario: “Could the president impose a 50 percent tariff on gas-powered cars to address the extraordinary threat of climate change?”
Tariffs vs. Taxes: A Key Legal Question
Opposing lawyers argued that IEEPA does not mention tariffs and that Congress never intended to grant unlimited trade powers. Neil Katyal, representing small businesses, said the law allowed embargoes or quotas—but not revenue-raising tariffs.
The justices scrutinized the text and history of the law. While past presidents have used IEEPA to impose sanctions, Trump was the first to apply it to tariffs. Sauer argued tariffs were “regulatory measures, not taxes,” claiming revenue generation was “incidental,” despite Trump’s public claims of billions collected.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor rejected that distinction. “You say tariffs aren’t taxes, but that’s exactly what they are,” she said. Justice Brett Kavanaugh added that it seemed inconsistent to let the president block trade entirely but not impose even a small tariff.
Billions at Stake for Businesses
Analysts estimate the case could affect $90 billion in import taxes already paid—nearly half of U.S. tariff revenue through September. Officials warned that figure could reach $1 trillion if the court delays its ruling until June.
The hearing lasted nearly three hours, far longer than scheduled, and drew a packed courtroom. If the Supreme Court sides with Trump, it would overturn three lower-court rulings that found his actions exceeded presidential authority.
Outside the court, small business owners watched closely. Among them was Sarah Wells, founder of Sarah Wells Bags, which designs and imports bags for breast pumps. Her company paid about $20,000 in unexpected tariffs this year, halted imports, shifted suppliers, and laid off staff.
After the hearing, Wells said she felt cautiously optimistic. “They seemed to recognize the overreach,” she said. “It felt like the justices understood that this power must be restrained.”
