The U.S. Supreme Court has not yet issued a final ruling on the legality of President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs, but during the recent oral arguments, a majority of the justices across the ideological spectrum appeared highly skeptical of the administration’s legal defense.

The case focuses on whether the president overstepped his authority by using an emergency law to impose tariffs on goods from dozens of countries, including China, Canada, and Mexico.

Here are the full details on the Supreme Court hearing and the legal challenge:

🏛️ The Supreme Court Challenge: Legal Basis

The case, which consolidates lawsuits brought by a group of states and several small businesses, hinges on the interpretation of a 1977 statute.

1. The Law in Question: IEEPA

• Statute: The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977.
• Administration’s Argument: The Trump administration argued that IEEPA grants the President broad authority to “regulate importation” during a declared national emergency (such as large trade deficits or the flow of fentanyl). The administration contends that the power to “regulate” includes the power to impose tariffs.
• Challenger’s Argument: The challengers (businesses and states) argue that the IEEPA does not mention tariffs and was intended for imposing targeted economic sanctions on adversaries, not for overhauling the entire national tariff system. They assert that the Constitution grants the power to levy tariffs solely to Congress, and a broad reading of IEEPA would illegally transfer that power to the Executive Branch.

2. The Tariffs at Stake

The case specifically challenges the legality of the following tariffs, which were imposed by President Trump after declaring national emergencies:

• “Reciprocal Tariffs”: An initial tariff of at least 10% on imports from almost all countries, citing large trade deficits as a “national emergency.”
• “Trafficking Tariffs”: Tariffs on products from China, Mexico, and Canada, citing their alleged failure to stop the flow of fentanyl into the U.S.

🔎 Justices’ Skepticism During Oral Arguments

During the arguments, a majority of the nine justices—including three of the conservative members—raised sharp questions regarding the administration’s interpretation of IEEPA:

• Chief Justice John Roberts: Questioned the extent of the claimed power, asking if IEEPA allowed for tariffs on “any product, from any country, in any amount, for any length of time.”
• Justice Neil Gorsuch: Suggested that allowing this power would be a “one-way ratchet toward the gradual but continual accretion of power in the executive branch” and away from Congress.
• The Major Questions Doctrine: Justices appeared receptive to the challengers’ argument that this case involves a matter of “vast economic and political significance” (a “major question”), requiring Congress to speak clearly if it intended to delegate such sweeping power to the President. Since IEEPA doesn’t mention tariffs, the power cannot be inferred.

Lower courts (the U.S. Court of International Trade and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) have already ruled against the Trump administration’s use of IEEPA for these tariffs, but those tariffs remain in place pending the Supreme Court’s final decision.

🌍 Potential Impact of the Ruling

The Supreme Court’s decision, expected by the summer, will have profound consequences:

• If the Court Rules Against Trump (Strikes Down the Tariffs):
  • The ruling would significantly limit the President’s ability to use executive authority (specifically IEEPA) to impose broad tariffs.
  • The administration would likely have to refund tens of billions of dollars in tariff duties already collected.
  • The White House would be forced to seek new legal grounds (such as Section 232 or Section 301 authorities) to impose its trade policy, a process that is more bureaucratic and time-consuming.
• If the Court Rules for Trump (Upholds the Tariffs):
  • It would greatly embolden the Executive Branch’s power in foreign policy and trade, effectively giving the President immense, unilateral authority over the U.S. tariff schedule.
  • The decision would cement tariffs as a core, fast-acting tool of U.S. foreign policy, bypassing Congressional approval.

The case is widely viewed as the most significant test of Presidential power before the current Supreme Court term.