Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Trump’s Tariff Powers

The Supreme Court engaged in a critical examination on Wednesday regarding President Donald Trump‘s controversial use of emergency powers to impose his “Liberation Day” tariffs. The session revealed a notable skepticism among even the justices appointed by Trump himself.

Concerns Among Conservative Justices

Several inquiries from conservative justices, particularly Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, signaled doubts about granting the administration the authority to enact a steep 10% tariff on a broad array of imports through the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). A ruling unfavorable to the administration could signal a significant setback for Trump’s flagship economic strategy.

Legal Framework of the IEEPA

The IEEPA is a statute that endows the president with extensive economic powers during a declared national emergency tied to foreign threats. Earlier this year, Trump invoked the trade deficit as a rationale to activate tariffs via executive order. However, a contentious issue arose from the fact that the term “tariffs” or “taxes” is notably absent from the statute, which became a focal point in both this week’s oral arguments and prior lower court reviews.

The Critical Interpretation of “Regulate Importation”

Much of the justices’ inquiries concentrated on a specific clause within IEEPA — the authority to “regulate importation” in times of national crisis. Questions persisted regarding whether this phrase authorized Trump to act as he claims. Several justices, including Barrett, expressed reluctance at interpreting the phrase in a manner that could effectively shift Congress’ constitutional power over revenue and taxation to the executive branch.

Barrett notably questioned U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, asking, “Can you point to any other place in the code or any other time in history where that phrase — together with ‘regulate importation’ — has been used to confer tariff-imposing authority?” This inquiry underscored the justices’ wariness about an expansive reading of presidential powers.

Devastating Implications of a Ruling Against the Administration

Gorsuch expressed concerns regarding the potential constitutional implications, querying Sauer about his “theory of the Constitution” and the so-called “major questions doctrine.” He indicated discomfort with the idea of Congress abdicating its responsibilities over foreign commerce or declaring war in favor of presidential powers. “What would prohibit Congress from abdicating all responsibility to regulate foreign commerce or declare war to the president?” he posed.

Arguments from Both Sides

Sauer contended that a “regulatory tariff” is distinct from a tax, arguing that the revenue increase is merely incidental. However, this assertion faced scrutiny as the White House touted that Trump’s tariff revenues surpassed $100 billion this year, raising questions on the primary implications of the tariffs imposed.

Opponents of the administration, comprising private entities and Democratic-led states, assert that Congress should explicitly grant authority when empowering presidents to impose tariffs. They highlighted instances like Section 232 (national security trade measures) and Section 301 (retaliation for unfair trade), where Congress clearly bestowed tariff powers upon the president. In contrast, the IEEPA has been applied primarily for embargoes, asset freezes, and licensing, but not for comprehensive tariffs.

Legal analysts noted that the last instance in which the Court sanctioned a delegation of tariff powers to the president occurred in Algonquin SNG v. FEA (1976), where the Court cited Section 232 as providing a clear mandate from Congress. The plaintiffs argue that IEEPA lacks similar explicit language and framework.

The Liberal Justices’ Stance

The liberal justices on the Supreme Court indicated that absent unequivocal language from Congress, IEEPA does not confer tariff authority to Trump. Following the precedent set in *Loper Bright v. Raimondo* (2024), courts have become increasingly reluctant to grant federal agencies latitude when interpreting vague statutes. Under the “major questions” doctrine discussed by Gorsuch and others, significant, broad economic measures like Trump’s tariffs necessitate an explicit congressional grant of authority.

Predictions and Expert Opinions

Legal experts and court watchers expressed mixed sentiments following the arguments. Some suggested that a ruling favoring the Trump administration might be harder to achieve than previously expected, although they cautioned that drawing conclusions from roughly two hours of oral arguments is precarious.

Jonathan Turley, a law professor and contributor to Fox News, stated that the justices seemed “skeptical and uncomfortable” with the claimed authority, with the odds still favoring the challengers. Turley noted the possibility of a fractured ruling that could still provide an effective victory for the administration.

High-Stakes Confrontation Over Executive Power

Jack Goldsmith, a former assistant attorney general during the George W. Bush administration, conveyed a measured perspective. He remarked that while the justices considered hard questions and expressed skepticism regarding pivotal aspects of the government’s case, they equally challenged the opposing arguments, avoiding definitive signs of their leanings.

Brent Skorup, a legal fellow at the CATO Institute, observed that the justices appeared uneasy with the prospect of expanding presidential power over tariffs. “Most justices seemed attentive to the risks of deferring to a president’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute,” he remarked.

The Case Ahead

The case in question is *Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump* (consolidated with *Trump v. V.O.S. Selections*). A ruling from the Supreme Court is anticipated by late June, carrying substantial implications for the boundaries of executive power and the legislative intent embedded within tariffs and trade policy.