Supreme Court Skeptical Over Trump's Tariff Power

Justices at the Supreme Court appeared deeply skeptical Wednesday about whether President Donald Trump has the authority to impose tariffs without congressional approval.

Arguments in Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump unfolded over more than two hours and got off to a rocky start for the administration as a nearly breathless Solicitor General John Sauer was peppered with questions from every justice about the tension between Trump’s sweeping claims of authority and the separation of powers that have guided the nation’s government since its inception.

Trump isn’t trying to impose a tax with tariffs; he’s trying to regulate trade, Sauer said. And, he added, tariffs aren’t taxes anyway.

An incredulous-sounding Chief Justice Roberts pointed out that it is Americans who pay for tariffs, however, and therefore they are a form of tax.

“The vehicle is imposition of taxes on Americans, and that has always been the core power of Congress,” he said. “So to have the president’s foreign affairs power trump that basic power for Congress seems to me to kind of at least neutralize between the two powers, the executive power and the legislative power.”

“We’re not saying this is the power to tax, this is regulatory,” Sauer insisted.

When he imposed tariffs this year on at least three occasions, Trump invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, and pointed to language in the 1977 law around the “regulation of importations.”

Historically, IEEPA has been used as a sanctioning tool in conjunction with Congress, not a method for the president to unilaterally impose tariffs.

The law, he argued, gave him the right to impose tariffs on the basis of there being a national emergency or to address major foreign policy concerns.

The administration claims trade deficits — specifically, $1.2 trillion from 2024 — are this emergency. (Trade deficits with foreign trade partners have been, in fact, quite regular over the past 50 years.)

In any event, according to Sauer, the “major questions doctrine,” or the notion that courts can limit the power of the executive when there is a matter of vast consequence or legal ambiguity, simply “doesn’t apply” here.

The administration’s arguments piqued concerns over the limits of presidential power from conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch.

If the president is essentially arguing that Congress can delegate whatever power it has away to the president when he desires it, then where are the limits?

“What would prohibit Congress from just abdicating all responsibility to regulate foreign commerce — for that matter, to declare war — to the president?” Gorsuch asked.

The skepticism coming from the conservative justices seemed particularly pointed given their track record of blessing Trump’s near-every bid to expand his powers as president.

Should the high court rule against Trump, it likely means he will lose whatever upper hand in negotiations he had with trading partners, as Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent warned in September. But even a loss may not deter Trump from acting: The administration has other means available to impose tariffs beyond IEEPA, including provisions of the 1930 Tariff Act. One section, known as Section 1338, allows a president to impose tariffs if he believes other nations are discriminating “against the commerce of the United States.”

Nonetheless, the U.S. could be expected to start refunding over $80 billion in funds it has already collected through the tariffs.

The potential chaos of that scenario wasn’t lost on Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

“How would the reimbursement process work?” she said. “It seems it could be a mess.”

Neal Katyal, who is representing the companies suing the administration, said that underscored the point. While the government has already stipulated that the challenger plaintiffs would get a refund should Trump be found in violation of the law, for everyone else, reimbursement is a daunting prospect.

A “whole specialized body” of trade and administrative laws could guide the process, he said, but he underlined that it was a “complicated thing.”

At least one class action lawsuit for “everybody else” has been filed against the administration. A group known as the New Civil Liberties Alliance launched its class action complaint on Monday, arguing that Congress alone has the authority to control tariffs and that millions of American businesses and individuals are being plainly harmed by his power grab.

Mark Chenoweth, president of the New Civil Liberties Alliance, expressed optimism in a statement shared with HuffPost. The court, he believes, is “on the verge” of setting aside Trump’s IEEPA tariffs.

“When it does so, it may find a way to provide nationwide relief. But in case it does not, NCLA will stand ready with this class action lawsuit to make sure everyone in the class who pays tariffs can obtain relief as soon as possible,” Chenoweth said.