President Donald Trump’s wide-ranging tariffs faced tough scrutiny at the Supreme Court on Wednesday in a case that could redefine presidential authority and reshape global trade. Several conservative justices questioned the administration’s defense of import duties that Trump said were necessary to revive U.S. manufacturing and fix long-standing trade imbalances.
A coalition of small businesses and states sued the administration, arguing that Trump went beyond his legal authority by imposing what they describe as an unlawful tax. With a 6–3 conservative majority, the Supreme Court often takes months to issue major rulings, but many expect a faster decision in this politically charged case testing the limits of executive power.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, one of Trump’s appointees, pressed the administration’s lawyer on the scope of the tariffs. “Is it your contention that every country needed to be tariffed because of threats to the defense and industrial base? I mean, Spain? France?” she asked. “I can see it with some countries, but why so many?”
Billions of dollars in tariff payments hang in the balance. If the administration loses, the government could be forced to refund vast sums already collected—a process Barrett warned might turn into “a complete mess.”
The White House sent Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer to the hearing. Officials said they were ready to use other legal avenues if the court ruled against them. “The White House is always preparing for Plan B,” said press secretary Karoline Leavitt before the hearing.
Speaking later on Fox News, Trump said the hearing went well and warned that losing would be “devastating” for the nation. He called it “one of the most important cases in the history of our country.”
The Legal Foundation Behind the Fight
The case revolves around the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA. The law grants presidents the authority to “regulate” trade during national emergencies. Trump first invoked it in February to impose tariffs on China, Mexico, and Canada, arguing that drug trafficking from those countries created an emergency.
Two months later, he expanded the measure, ordering tariffs from 10% to 50% on imports from nearly every country. He claimed the U.S. trade deficit posed an “extraordinary and unusual threat” to national security. These tariffs took effect in stages over the summer as the U.S. pushed nations to negotiate new trade deals.
The administration argued that the power to regulate trade naturally includes the power to impose tariffs. Officials said the U.S. faced “country-killing and unsustainable” crises that demanded immediate presidential action. Solicitor General John Sauer warned that overturning Trump’s authority would expose the nation to “ruthless trade retaliation” and cause “ruinous economic and security consequences.”
Justices Question the Reach of Executive Power
Several justices voiced concern about the broad interpretation of presidential authority. “The justification allows tariffs on any product, from any country, in any amount, for any duration,” Chief Justice John Roberts said.
Under the Constitution, Congress—not the president—holds the power to tax. Courts have historically limited how much of that power lawmakers can delegate to the executive branch. Justice Neil Gorsuch asked, “What would stop Congress from giving away all responsibility for regulating foreign commerce?” He admitted he was “struggling” to see how Sauer’s interpretation fit within the law.
Gorsuch added a pointed example: “Could the president impose a 50 percent tariff on gas-powered cars and auto parts to address the extraordinary threat of climate change?”
Tariffs or Taxes? A Debate Over Words and Power
Lawyers for the states and private challengers argued that IEEPA does not mention tariffs and that Congress never intended to grant presidents unlimited power over trade. Neil Katyal, representing small businesses, said the law allowed embargoes or quotas—but not revenue-raising tariffs.
The justices focused heavily on the statute’s wording and its past uses. Presidents have long used IEEPA to impose sanctions, but Trump was the first to apply it to tariffs. Sauer insisted tariffs were a “regulatory measure, not a tax.” He said raising revenue was “only incidental,” even though Trump often touted the billions collected through tariffs.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor rejected that argument. “You say tariffs aren’t taxes, but that’s exactly what they are,” she said. Justice Brett Kavanaugh added that it seemed illogical to let a president block trade entirely but not impose a small tariff.
Billions at Risk and Businesses Under Pressure
The outcome could affect roughly $90 billion in import taxes already paid—almost half of all U.S. tariff revenue through September, according to Wells Fargo analysts. Trump officials warned the amount could grow to $1 trillion if the court delays its decision until June.
The hearing stretched nearly three hours, far longer than planned, and drew a packed audience. If the court sides with Trump, it will overturn three lower-court rulings that found the administration exceeded its authority.
Among those in attendance was Sarah Wells, founder of Sarah Wells Bags, who joined other small business owners outside the court. Her company, which designs and imports bags for breast pumps, paid around $20,000 in unexpected tariffs this year. She halted imports, changed suppliers, and laid off workers.
After the hearing, Wells expressed cautious optimism. “They seemed to understand the overreach,” she said. “It felt like the justices recognized that this power has to be reined in.”
