US Supreme Court to weigh legality of Trump's sweeping tariff powers

Ann E Marimow

 

Again and again since US President  Donald Trump returned to the White House, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority has blessed his boundary-pushing policies, allowing them to take effect on an interim basis while litigation plays out in the lower courts. But on Wednesday, the justices will consider for the first time whether to say “no” to Trump in a lasting way.

 

At issue is the legality of his signature economic policy: the use of emergency powers to impose sweeping tariffs on nearly every US trading partner. The outcome of the case could significantly affect the global economy, American businesses and consumers.

 

 

Experts say the case is a tossup that poses difficult legal and political considerations for the justices, made all the more tense by  Trump’s efforts to personalise the dispute. Trump had mused about attending the court’s argument this week, and has spoken repeatedly of the case’s importance to him. On Sunday, he said he decided against going to court, but stressed that he considered the stakes to be monumental.

 

The case “is one of the most important in the history of the country,” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social. “If a president was not able to quickly and nimbly use the power of tariffs, we would be defenseless, leading perhaps even to the ruination of our nation.” Observers of the court said the justices would be keenly aware that  Trump would perceive a legal defeat as a personal blow.

 

“You can’t help but think that that’s going to be hovering over the decision-making process in this case,” said Donald B Verrilli Jr, who was the solicitor general during the Obama administration.

 

The Supreme Court’s six conservative justices have so far been receptive to  Trump’s claims of presidential authority. Among other things, they have allowed the administration to withhold funds appropriated by Congress, kick transgender troops out of the military and pursue aggressive immigration-related policies — but all on a temporary, emergency basis.The tariffs case is the first time the justices have weighed the underlying legal merits of a key administration priority in Trump’s second term.

 

Other such cases are on the horizon. In January, the justices will weigh his attempt to remove a member of the Federal Reserve Board. The administration has also asked them to consider the legality of the president’s executive order ending birthright citizenship.

 

Jack Goldsmith, a former top Justice Department lawyer under George W Bush, said that because the legal issues were so closely contested in the tariffs matter, some justices could weigh broader implications across the set of presidential cases, concerned about either handing  Trump too much power — or too many defeats.

 

“At the end of this term, we’ll see wins and losses for Trump on presidential power,” he said. “This is the case I think is the closest, so I don’t know which way it will cut.” In a sign that the court recognises the importance of the tariffs case, the justices set a brisk schedule for the parties to submit written briefs and present oral arguments. They now seem likely to rule swiftly rather than wait until the end of the term next summer, as is their usual practice for the most consequential decisions.

 

The Constitution gives Congress the power to impose taxes. But soon after taking office,  Trump declared that a 1977 law gave him the power to impose tariffs unilaterally during emergencies.

 

He used the statute to announce tariffs on goods imported into the United States from China, Canada and Mexico, saying the levies were a punishment for failing to stop the flow of fentanyl. In April, he again relied on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act when he announced tariffs on imports from more than 100 trading partners, saying they were needed to address trade deficits with the rest of the world.

 

The administration’s on-again, off-again taxes on imports have roiled small businesses, prompting lawsuits from state officials and six companies, including the wine importer VOS. Selections and the toy manufacturer Learning Resources, whose cases are before the court on Wednesday. Trump’s actions, they say, were unlawful, cut into their profits and forced them to lay off employees and raise prices. The 1977 statute gives the president certain tools to “deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat” to “the national security, foreign policy or economy of the US.” That includes the power to “regulate” imports.

 

©2025 The New York Times News Service