In the biggest case this term, the Supreme Court will decide whether President Trump can impose significant tariffs on nearly all products imported into the United States.
President Trump says he may attend Supreme Court arguments in tariff case
President Trump said he may attend Supreme Court arguments on the tariffs because the case is so important to the country’s financial security.
- The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear a case challenging President Trump’s authority to impose steep tariffs on almost all imported goods.
- The tariffs are being challenged by small businesses and more than a dozen states, who say they increase costs and unconstitutionally usurp the president from powers vested in Congress.
- President Trump is using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 to justify tariffs. This law is typically used to freeze foreign assets and block trade.
- The administration argues that the law allows the president to impose taxes on imports as a more lenient regulation, and that the trade deficit constitutes a national emergency.
WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump’s far-reaching views on presidential power are facing their first major test at the U.S. Supreme Court.
On November 5, the justices will consider whether President Trump has the authority to impose significant tariffs on almost all products imported into the United States.
Tariffs are the centerpiece of President Trump’s economic policy and his primary foreign policy tool. But costs for businesses and consumers have also increased. It also raises questions about whether President Trump has unconstitutionally deprived Congress of important powers to raise revenue.
Here’s what you need to know about this lawsuit. It is the largest case the court has agreed to hear so far this term.
more: President Trump’s winning streak on the Supreme Court is about to be tested
Who is objecting to the tariffs?
President Trump’s tariffs are being challenged by several small businesses and more than a dozen states with Democratic attorneys general.
Businesses include an Illinois-based company that sells educational toys and a New York City-based wine importing company. Learning Resources, which makes most of its toys in China, said it could face a loss of $100 million in tariffs this year, compared to the $2.3 million it paid in import fees last year.
The states suing are Oregon, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, and Vermont. Attorneys general from both countries say the tariffs are “wreaking havoc on capital markets and economies” and raising the cost of goods purchased by states.
What tariffs are being challenged?
Two types of tariffs that President Trump has imposed since the start of his second term are being challenged. One is the reciprocal tariffs the president has imposed on nearly all goods imported into the United States to address the trade deficit. He said these import fees would raise billions of dollars for the government and bring manufacturing back to the United States.
Other tariffs at issue are those imposed on imports from Mexico, Canada, and China, which President Trump is using as leverage to force those countries to take further steps to stop fentanyl from entering the United States.
Why are tariffs so controversial?
Trump is the first president to use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a 1977 law, to impose broad tariffs, a move that circumvents the more complex and restrictive tariff process established by other laws.
IEEPA allows the president to “regulate the import and export” of “property in which a foreign country or its nationals have an interest” in order to “address unusual and unusual threats” to the nation.
It is typically used to freeze foreign assets in the United States or to completely block trade with a country. For example, President Jimmy Carter used IEEPA to freeze Iranian government assets in order to win the release of 52 Americans during the 1979 Iran Hostage Crisis.
What do the challengers say?
Challengers argue that President Trump is stretching the word “regulation” beyond its original meaning. They say there is no indication Congress intended to give the president such broad taxing powers. And the Supreme Court has said in recent years that the executive branch cannot take actions that have significant economic or political consequences without the express authorization of Congress.
“Indeed, if ‘regulation’ meant ‘tax,’ then the president would be empowered by the overreach of the U.S. Code to tax everything from cars to zoos,” lawyers for some of the companies argued in a filing.
They argue that even if that was the intent of lawmakers, it is unconstitutional to give the president so much power over the form of taxation, a responsibility given to Congress by the Founding Fathers.
The challengers also argue that the country’s trade deficit, which has existed since 1975, does not constitute an emergency that could trigger IEEPA.
more: Will the Supreme Court treat President Trump’s tariffs the same way as Biden’s policies?
What is the Trump administration’s position?
The administration argues that because IEEPA gives the president the power to block imports from certain countries, it should also allow taxes on imported goods. This is because it is a less extreme form of import “control.”
The administration also said Congress is authorized to delegate significant authority to the president to deal with emergencies, particularly foreign-related emergencies. The administration contends that Congress clearly has done so in this case, and that lawmakers still have oversight powers that they can exercise in cases where they believe the president is overreaching. (Republicans in Congress rejected Democratic lawmakers’ attempts to intervene.)
The Justice Department told the court that persistent trade deficits are an “economic and national security” emergency because they “further dependence on foreign rivals and eviscerate U.S. manufacturing.”
“If the President fails to use his tariff power quickly and with agility, we will be left vulnerable and perhaps even ruined as a nation,” Trump said in a social media post.
What did the lower court rule?
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was divided, but three courts sided with the challengers.
Four of the seven appellate court judges said the IEEPA does not authorize tariffs. The three justices said the law allows the president to impose some tariffs, but not as broad as Trump’s. And four said tariffs are a good use of the law.
What is the Supreme Court likely to rule?
Experts say the incident raises the possibility of conflict between conservative positions.
The Supreme Court, with a 6-3 conservative majority, has supported giving the president broad executive powers, particularly in areas related to national security and foreign affairs. But the court also accepted conservative arguments that Congress should not give too much power to the executive branch. If substantive decision-making authority is to be granted, it must be clearly granted. This was the basis for the court’s rejection of some of the policies that President Joe Biden had justified on grounds of “emergency.”
What has the Supreme Court ruled on President Trump’s other policies?
This will be the first time that a challenge to policies enacted by President Trump during his second term will be heard by the Supreme Court. Judges have previously issued tentative rulings on whether President Trump’s policies remain in effect pending litigation. In that case, Trump has been overwhelmingly successful.
Will President Trump attend oral arguments?
The president had said the case was so important that he might make history as the first sitting president to appear at a high court hearing. But he later declined to appear, telling reporters on Nov. 2 that he “didn’t want to do anything that would distract from the importance” of the decision.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent will attend in his place. Bessent told Fox News that his appearance would “underscore that this is an economic emergency.”
When is a decision expected?
The Supreme Court can take months to rule on the biggest cases, but it could try to rule more quickly on tariffs. Part of the reason is that the longer the system is in place, the more money the government may have to collect and refund. The justices also recognized that the uncertainty surrounding tariffs makes it difficult for affected companies to plan.
Does President Trump have a backup plan?
If the Supreme Court rules against Trump, there are other laws he could use to impose tariffs. However, they require a more detailed process, can be used in more limited circumstances, and can remove some of the uncertainty for businesses by informing them of what is going to happen.
What impact did tariffs have on businesses and households?
President Trump has argued that countries that want to sell their goods to Americans will absorb import taxes to remain in the world’s largest consumer market.
But independent analysts including Goldman Sachs and S&P Global estimate that U.S. consumers and businesses are bearing much of the cost.
The Tax Foundation, a nonprofit think tank, estimates that the tariffs would amount to an average tax increase of $1,300 per household in 2025.
What does the public think?
Six in 10 Americans oppose tariffs, according to an August Pew Research Center poll.
A majority of Americans believe the long-term effects will be negative both for the country (55%) and for themselves and their families (55%).
