This afternoon Donald Trump’s day has gone from bad to worse. In a pivotal Supreme Court hearing on Wednesday, several conservative justices joined their liberal colleagues in questioning President Donald Trump’s broad use of emergency powers to impose sweeping tariffs on imports from more than 100 countries, a central pillar of his second-term economic agenda.
Every reader, every subscriber, every share helps us reach more people across the country and keep this movement growing. If you believe in what we’re doing, please consider subscribing and supporting this work today. Let’s keep redefining journalism, one story at a time.
Subscribe
The justices’ skepticism centered on whether the president exceeded his constitutional authority by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) to levy tariffs aimed at reducing trade deficits and bolstering domestic manufacturing. The law allows presidents to regulate foreign transactions in response to national emergencies, but until now, no president has used it to impose tariffs.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, seen as a key swing vote, pressed the administration to justify the breadth of the tariffs, questioning why nations like France and Spain were included. “Is it your contention that every country needed to be tariffed because of threats to the defense and industrial base?” she asked.
Justice Neil M. Gorsuch echoed separation-of-powers concerns, warning against “a one-way ratchet toward the gradual but continual accretion of power in the executive branch and away from the people’s elected representatives in Congress.”
The administration, represented by Solicitor General D. John Sauer, argued that Congress deliberately granted presidents broad discretion to manage emergencies under IEEPA. Sauer contended that tariffs were regulatory measures tied to foreign affairs, not taxes, emphasizing that revenue generation was merely “incidental.”
But the court’s questions revealed unease with that interpretation. Justice Sonia Sotomayor underscored the Constitution’s delegation of taxation authority to Congress: “If I’m going to be asked to pay for something as a citizen, that’s through a bill generated by Congress. I’m not going to be taxed unless both houses, the executive and the legislature, have made that choice.”
The challengers, a coalition of states, small businesses, and trade groups, maintain that IEEPA’s reference to the power to “regulate” does not authorize tariffs, pointing out that Congress has used explicit language in other laws when delegating tariff authority.
The Supreme Court’s review follows a 7–4 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that the emergency statute does not permit tariffs of such magnitude. The dissent, authored by Judge Richard G. Taranto, could influence the justices if they side with the president. Taranto argued that Congress had made an “eyes-open grant of broad emergency authority” to presidents in matters of foreign affairs.
The dispute also revives debate over the nondelegation doctrine, a constitutional principle limiting Congress’s ability to cede its legislative powers to the executive branch. Though largely dormant since the 1930s, conservative legal scholars have recently sought to resurrect the doctrine as a check on presidential and administrative authority.
While several conservative justices appeared wary of Trump’s argument, Justices Brett M. Kavanaugh and Samuel A. Alito Jr. raised points favoring the administration. Kavanaugh questioned whether it made sense for Congress to empower the president to shut down trade entirely but not to impose modest tariffs, calling it “an odd doughnut hole in the statute.” Oregon Solicitor General Benjamin N. Gutman, representing a group of states opposing the tariffs, quipped in reply, “It’s not a doughnut hole. It’s a different kind of pastry.”
The stakes extend far beyond the courtroom. Trump has described the case as “literally, LIFE OR DEATH for our Country,” arguing that removing his tariff authority would leave the United States “defenseless” against unfair foreign practices. The administration has warned that overturning the tariffs could cost billions in refunds to importers and destabilize trade relationships.
After nearly three hours of arguments, one takeaway was clear: the Court’s conservative majority, usually sympathetic to Trump’s claims of broad executive power, showed deep divisions over whether emergency powers can stretch to cover global tariff policy. A decision is expected within the next few months, and its implications could ripple through international markets, domestic politics, and the very limits of presidential authority.