Supreme Court Questions Legality of Trump's Tariff Powers

Thu Nov 06 2025 06:33:06 GMT+0200 (Eastern European Standard Time)

In a high-stakes hearing, conservative justices at the Supreme Court expressed skepticism regarding President Trump's sweeping tariffs, which are being challenged by various states and small businesses.

During a critical Supreme Court hearing, justices, including conservatives, raised doubts about President Trump's justification for implementing extensive tariffs. This legal challenge involves claims that the President has overreached his authority, bringing into question the balance of power between Congress and the presidency. The outcome could have significant implications for the U.S. economy and existing trade agreements.

President Donald Trump's use of sweeping tariffs faced sharp questioning at the Supreme Court on Wednesday, in a case with major implications for the president's agenda and the global economy.

A majority of justices, including several conservatives, expressed doubts about the White House's justification of the import duties, which the president has said are necessary to restore America's manufacturing base and fix its trade imbalance.

The measures are being challenged by a number of small businesses and a group of states, which contend that the president has overstepped his authority in imposing the levies, which are in effect a tax.

America's top court - which has a 6-3 conservative majority - usually takes months to reach big decisions, but many expect it to move faster in this case, which is also seen as the first major test of the Trump administration's push to expand presidential power.

And so is it your contention that every country needed to be tariffed because of threats to the defense and industrial base? I mean, Spain? France? asked Amy Coney Barrett, appointed to the court by Trump. I could see it with some countries but explain to me why as many countries needed to be subject to the reciprocal tariff policy as are.

Billions of dollars in tariff payments are at stake. If the Trump administration loses, the government could have to refund some of the billions of dollars it has collected, a process that Barrett noted could become a complete mess.

The White House, which sent Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer to the hearing, has said that they will turn to other tariff authorities if the court does not rule in its favour. The White House is always preparing for Plan B, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said ahead of the hearing.

Arguing over 'country-killing' crises

The case centres around the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) that gives the president the power to regulate trade in response to an emergency.

Trump first invoked IEEPA in February to tax goods from China, Mexico, and Canada, saying drug trafficking constituted an emergency.

Implications of the case

The justices' questions suggested they were wrestling with the implications of a ruling in favour of the administration. The justification is being used for power to impose tariffs on any product from any country in any amount, for any length of time, Chief Justice John Roberts stated.

Tariffs vs taxes

Lawyers for the challenging states and private groups argue that the law does not mention tariffs and assert that Congress did not intend to give the president the power to impose such broad measures.

Reaction from a full house

The hearing was attended by a full audience and stretched nearly three hours, far longer than the allotted time. If the court rules in Trump's favour, it will overturn lower courts that ruled against the administration.