President Donald Trump’s aggressive use of tariffs faced strong resistance at the Supreme Court on Wednesday in a case that could reshape the limits of presidential power and impact the global economy. Several conservative justices challenged the administration’s reasoning behind import duties that Trump claimed were needed to rebuild U.S. manufacturing and fix trade imbalances.
A coalition of states and small businesses has sued the administration, arguing that Trump exceeded his authority by imposing what they describe as a form of tax. The Supreme Court, with its 6–3 conservative majority, often takes months to issue rulings. But many expect a faster decision in this politically charged case, seen as a major test of executive power.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, appointed by Trump, questioned the administration’s sweeping approach. “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 are at stake. If the administration loses, the government could be forced to refund huge sums already collected, a process Barrett warned might become “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 would turn to alternative legal authorities if the ruling goes against them. “The White House is always preparing for Plan B,” press secretary Karoline Leavitt said beforehand.
Speaking later on Fox News, Trump declared the hearing went well and warned that losing would be “devastating” for the country. He called it “one of the most important cases in the history of our nation.”
The Fight Over Emergency Trade Powers
At the center of the case is the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, known as IEEPA. Passed in 1977, the law allows presidents to regulate trade during national emergencies. Trump first invoked it in February to tax imports from China, Mexico, and Canada, claiming drug trafficking from those nations posed an emergency.
In April, he expanded the measure, ordering tariffs from 10% to 50% on goods from nearly every country. He said the U.S. trade deficit represented an “extraordinary and unusual threat” to national security. The tariffs took effect gradually over the summer as Washington pressed countries to negotiate trade deals.
The Trump administration argues that the power to “regulate” includes the power to impose tariffs. Officials said the U.S. faced “country-killing and unsustainable” crises that required swift presidential action. Solicitor General John Sauer warned that limiting Trump’s powers would expose the country to “ruthless trade retaliation” and bring “ruinous economic and security consequences.”
Conservatives Question the Limits of Authority
The justices signaled concern about how far the administration’s logic could extend. “The justification allows tariffs on any product, from any country, in any amount, for any duration,” Chief Justice John Roberts said.
The Constitution gives Congress—not the president—the power to tax. Courts have long restricted how much of that authority lawmakers can delegate to the executive branch. Justice Neil Gorsuch asked, “What would stop Congress from simply handing over all responsibility for foreign commerce?” He said he was “struggling” to accept Sauer’s interpretation.
Gorsuch then pressed further: “Could the president impose a 50 percent tariff on gas-powered cars and auto parts to combat the extraordinary threat of climate change?”
Tariffs or Taxes? A Legal Tug-of-War
Lawyers for the states and private challengers argued that IEEPA never mentions “tariffs” and that Congress never intended to grant presidents open-ended power to override existing trade agreements. Neil Katyal, representing small businesses, said the law allowed embargoes or quotas—but not revenue-raising tariffs.
The justices focused on the statute’s text and history. Presidents have used IEEPA for sanctions, but Trump is the first to apply it to tariffs. Sauer maintained that tariffs are “regulatory measures, not taxes.” He called any revenue effect “incidental,” even though Trump frequently boasted about billions collected through tariffs.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor pushed back. “You say tariffs aren’t taxes, but that’s exactly what they are,” she said. Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted it seemed inconsistent to let a president block all trade yet forbid a minor tariff.
Economic Stakes and Human Impact
The case could affect about $90 billion in import taxes already paid—nearly half of all U.S. tariff revenue through September, according to Wells Fargo analysts. Trump officials warned that total could reach $1 trillion if the court delays its decision until June.
The hearing lasted nearly three hours—well beyond the scheduled time—and drew a packed courtroom. If the justices side with Trump, they will overturn three lower-court rulings that rejected the administration’s position.
Among those in attendance was Sarah Wells, founder of Sarah Wells Bags, who sat outside with other small business owners. Her company, which designs and imports bags for breast pumps, paid around $20,000 in unexpected tariffs this year. She stopped imports, restructured her supply chain, and laid off workers.
After the hearing, Wells felt cautiously hopeful. “They seemed to understand the overreach,” she said. “It felt like the justices recognized that this power has to be reined in.”
