Released November 06, 2025 | SUGAR LAND
Written by John Egan for Industrial Info Resources (Sugar Land, Texas)
Summary
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a momentous case of whether the president can use a law as the legal basis for imposing tariffs on imported goods.
Supreme Court Hears Tariffs Case
A case over whether the president can legally impose tariffs by using the International Economic Emergency Powers Act of 1977 was heard Wednesday by the Supreme Court.
President Donald Trump invoked that law twice this year to support the imposition of tariffs: The first time in February against Mexico, China and Canada to curb the flow of fentanyl and its precursors, and the second time in April against nearly every country in the world to combat what he claimed were longstanding unfair trade practices.
The case is a consolidation of two cases: Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc. Should the court find against the president, he can use other laws to justify these and other tariffs, but all of those other laws have specific, time-consuming requirements and some limit the size and duration of tariffs.
Conservatives hold a 6-3 majority on the court. The majority has ruled for Trump in a number of cases, but on Wednesday several conservative justices asked a number of pointed questions of the president's counsel, suggesting they may have some doubts about the president's claims.
Neal Katyal, who argued for the parties contesting the president's authority, also took a few hard questions from conservative members of the court, but they seemed briefer and fewer in number than the queries directed at the president's lawyer, Solicitor General D. John Sauer.
A least one court-watcher from SCOTUSblog predicted the court would rule against Trump and overturn the tariffs.
What Did the Court Consider?
The high court considered two questions:
Whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) authorizes the tariffs imposed by Trump pursuant to the national emergencies declared or continued in proclamation, as amended, and
If IEEPA authorizes the tariffs, whether the statute unconstitutionally delegates legislative authority to the president.
What Were the Arguments?
Arguments by Katyal, a partner at Milbank L.L.P. (New York, New York) and a former acting solicitor general under President Barack Obama, and his co-counsel, Benjamin Gutman, solicitor general for the state of Oregon, emphasized that the Constitution gave Congress the sole authority to levy taxes and tariffs. The tariffs were expected to generate as much as $4 trillion. Trump administration officials have said the tariff revenue would be used to fund the government, pay for his omnibus tax and budget bill and reduce the federal budget deficit.
"Tariffs are taxes," said Kayal. "They take money from the pockets of Americans and deposit them in the treasury. Our founders have (given) that power to Congress alone. It is implausible that in enacting IEEPA, Congress handed the president the power to overhaul the entire tariff system and the American economy in the process, allowing him to set and reset tariffs on any and every product, from any and every country, at any and every time."
Kayal and Gutman also said the president's imposition of tariffs violated the "major questions" doctrine and the non-delegation doctrine. The "major questions" doctrine holds that any executive action with significant economic impacts must be explicitly authorized by Congress. The non-delegation doctrine says that one branch of government cannot delegate its constitutionally authorized power to another.
Sauer, arguing for the president, asserted that neither of those doctrines applied in this case because when Congress enacted IEEPA, it authorized the president to take a number of specific actions, such as "investigate, block, nullify, direct, compel, seize, regulate and prohibit," to respond to economic emergencies. It was "a matter of common sense," Sauer asserted, that "regulate" included the ability to levy tariffs. He added that he was not asserting that a president has the ability to levy tariffs. Rather, levying tariffs was an action contemplated by the term "regulate importation" of goods.
But several justices pushed back against Sauer's claim. They said, in essence, that if Congress wanted to give the president the authority to levy tariffs in IEEPA, it would have specifically included that power among all the other verbs that it did specify in that law.
Sauer also claimed there would be a "ruthless trade retaliation" against the U.S. if the court ruled against the president. He also stated that the Constitution gives the president broad and sole authority to conduct foreign affairs, and that the tariffs were an instrument of foreign affairs.
He also asserted that the ability to levy tariffs on imports was an essential part of his ability to conduct foreign policy.
Speaking for several of the Trump skeptics on the court, Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson cast doubt on Sauer's argument when she said, "IEEPA was designed to constrain presidential authority, not grant it unlimited power."
Lower Courts Have Ruled Against Trump
Two lower courts have ruled that Trump exceeded his authority under the IEEPA.
On August 29, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled 7-4 to uphold a unanimous lower-court ruling from the U.S. Court of International Trade, issued in May. For more on those court decisions, see September 3, 2025, article - Trump Tariffs, and His Economic Agenda, Threatened by Court Decision and May 30, 2025, article - Appeals Court Pauses Block on Trump Tariffs. In the May decision, an appeals court paused its own ruling to allow the parties to file an appeal with the nation's highest court.
Both lower-court rulings noted that IEEPA does not even include the term "tariffs" or any of its synonyms. Also, in arguing those cases before those courts, those opposing the tariffs have pointed out that a trade imbalance between the U.S. and the rest of the world has existed for about 50 consecutive years.
Trump Invokes National Security, Economic Catastrophe
In their 251-page petition to the high court to hear the case, the president's lawyers at the Department of Justice said the case "addresses the validity of the Administration's most significant economic and foreign-policy initiative--the imposition of tariffs under IEEPA, which President Trump has determined are necessary to rectify America's country-killing trade deficits and to stem the flood of fentanyl across our borders."
The president and his advisors have spoken in cataclysmic, even apocalyptic, terms about the need for him to enact the tariffs under IEEPA. Limiting his authority to levy those tariffs would undermine his authority and imperil the nation, they claim.
In asking the Supreme Court to reverse the lower-court rulings, Trump said that trade deficits had created "an ongoing economic emergency of historic proportions, ... and brought America to a 'tipping point,' i.e., 'the brink of a major economic and national-security catastrophe.' "
The president's petition invoked "national security" or "foreign policy" dozens of times, probably in the knowledge that the court traditionally has been wary of intruding on the president's national security and foreign policy powers.
The petition also said the president's use of IEEPA tariff powers helped convince several countries to come to trade agreements with the U.S. that were more favorable that what existed before.
Their petition said the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office projected that tariffs would reduce federal deficits by $4 trillion in the coming years. So far this year, the government has collected an estimated $90 billion in tariffs under IEEPA. Importers, distributors, retailers and consumers have all paid some portion of the IEEPA tariffs.
Respondents Cite Lower-Court Rulings that Trump Exceeded his Authority
Those opposing the president's IEEPA tariff regime include small businesses, libertarians and attorneys general from 12 Democratic-led states, including California, New York, Colorado and Illinois.
Their far briefer court petition mainly cited findings from lower court rulings, including:
- The Constitution gives Congress the exclusive right to levy tariffs and taxes.
- The U.S. has run a trade deficit for about 50 consecutive years. So, IEEPA's requirement, that it be invoked only in response to "unusual or extraordinary" events, does not seem to apply.
- IEEPA does not mention "tariffs" or its synonyms.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court decision will have a significant impact on the remainder of the Trump presidency, international trade, foreign policy and the U.S. economy.
- Trump has asserted that he has authority under IEEPA to enact tariffs in economic emergencies.
- Lower courts have ruled against the president.
- Several Supreme Court justices seemed skeptical of the president's claims.
About Industrial Info Resources
Industrial Info Resources (IIR) is the leading provider of industrial market intelligence. Since 1983, IIR has provided comprehensive research, news and analysis on the industrial process, manufacturing and energy related industries. IIR's Global Market Intelligence (GMI) platform helps companies identify and pursue trends across multiple markets with access to real, qualified and validated plant and project opportunities. Across the world, IIR is tracking over 200,000 current and future projects worth $17.8 Trillion (USD).
