The Trump administration faced tough questions at the US supreme court over the legality of its sweeping global tariff regime, as justices expressed skepticism over the law it used to slap steep duties on almost every US trading partner.
Justices started to hear oral arguments this morning on tariffs at the heart of the president’s policy platform, a crucial legal test of his controversial economic strategy – and power.
In a series of executive orders issued earlier this year, Trump cited the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, a 1977 law which in some circumstances grants the president authority to regulate or prohibit international transactions during a national emergency, as he slapped steep duties on imports into the US.
The supreme court – controlled by a rightwing supermajority that was crafted by Trump – will review whether IEEPA grants the president the authority to levy a tariff, a word not mentioned in the law. Congress is granted sole authority under the constitution to levy taxes. The court has until the end of its term, in July 2026, to issue a ruling on the case.
“We don’t contend that what’s being exercised here is the power to tax,” argued Dean John Sauer, US solicitor general, defending the Trump administration in the case. “It’s the power to regulate foreign commerce. These are regulatory tariffs. They are not revenue raising tariffs, the fact that they raise revenue was only incidental. The tariffs would be most effective, so to speak, if no … person ever paid them.”
“I just don’t understand this argument,” said justice Sonia Sotomayor. “You want to say tariffs are not taxes, but that’s exactly what they are.”
“I guess I’m wondering whether you also don’t have to contend with the actual purpose of IEEPA,” added justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. The law is “designed and intended to limit presidential authority”, she suggested. “It’s pretty clear that Congress was trying to constrain the emergency powers of the president and IEEPA.”
Lower courts have ruled against Trump’s tariffs, prompting appeals from the Trump administration, setting up this latest test of Trump’s presidential power. The supreme court has largely sided with the administration through its shadow docket to overrule lower courts.
Should the supreme court ultimately rule against Trump’s use of IEEPA to impose tariffs, it will force the White House to go back to the drawing board and reconsider how to enforce an aggressive economic policy which has strained global trade ties.
Should the court side with the administration, however, it will embolden a president who has repeatedly claimed – despite warnings over the risk of higher prices – that tariffs will help make America great again, raising “trillions” of dollars for the federal government and revitalizing its industrial heartlands.
Trump himself has argued the court’s decision is immensely important. The case is “one of the most important in the History of the Country”, he wrote on social media over the weekend, claiming that ruling against him would leave the US “defenseless”.
“If we win, we will be the Richest, Most Secure Country anywhere in the World, BY FAR,” Trump claimed. “If we lose, our Country could be reduced to almost Third World status – Pray to God that that doesn’t happen!”
But some of his senior officials have suggested that, if the court rules against their current strategy, they will find another way to impose tariffs. Treasury secretary Scott Bessent, who plans to attend the oral arguments in the case, has said the administration has “lots of other authorities” to do so.
According to the non-partisan Tax Foundation, Trump’s tariffs amount to an average tax increase per US household of $1,200 in 2025 and $1,600 in 2026.
skip past newsletter promotion
Sign up to This Week in Trumpland
A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration
Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. If you do not have an account, we will create a guest account for you on theguardian.com to send you this newsletter. You can complete full registration at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
after newsletter promotion
A coalition of 12 states and small businesses, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon and Vermont, have sued the Trump administration to block the tariffs.
Several other small businesses also filed suit against the Trump administration to block the tariffs. The cases, Learning Resources, Inc v Trump and Trump v VOS Selections, were consolidated by the court.
“No one person should have the power to impose taxes that have such vast global economic consequences,” Jeffrey Schwab, Liberty Justice Center’s senior counsel, said in a statement on the lawsuit filed on behalf of small businesses against the tariffs. “The Constitution gives the power to set tax rates – including tariffs – to Congress, not the President.”
About 40 legal briefs have been filed in opposition to the tariffs, including from the US Chamber of Commerce, the largest business lobby group in the US.
The US Chamber has urged Congress to reclaim its constitutional role in setting tariffs, stating in a letter on 27 October to the US Senate: “American families are facing thousands of dollars in higher prices as a result of these increased taxes. Small businesses, manufacturers, and ranchers are struggling with higher costs, with additional economic pain likely in the coming months.”
The US Senate voted 51 to 47 last week to nullify Trump’s so-called reciprocal tariffs, with four Republicans joining Democrats in the vote, though the House is not expected to take similar action.
But despite opposition in the Senate, the House of Representatives is unlikely to take similar action. House Republicans created a rule earlier this year that will block resolutions on the tariffs from getting a floor vote.
