WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court rarely feels this crowded in the middle of a government shutdown. But on Wednesday morning, the marble chamber buzzed with energy as Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick joined a packed gallery to witness the legal fate of Donald Trump’s tariffs play out before nine black-robed justices.
Outside, a chill swept across Capitol Hill. Protesters in crimson “Handmaid’s Tale” costumes mingled with joggers and curious onlookers, their chatter echoing off the scaffolding that wrapped around the Supreme Court’s facade — a city in pause mode, except for this one courtroom.
Inside, the stakes couldn’t have been higher. The argument: whether Trump’s sweeping tariffs, imposed under a 1977 emergency powers law, stretched presidential authority beyond its limits. Lower courts said yes. The administration begged to differ.
Despite the shutdown — now weeks long — the justices pressed on with business as usual. Public seating was limited, the atmosphere tense but electric. For many, seeing two of Trump’s cabinet members seated together during oral arguments was a rare sight. Trump himself, according to aides, almost showed up.
After the hearing, Bessent sounded bullish. Speaking on television, he declared himself “very, very optimistic,” brushing off questions about what would happen if the court ruled against the tariffs. “We’ll cross that bridge if we come to it,” he said confidently.
But outside the courtroom, business owners who’ve lived under the weight of those tariffs told a different story.
“These tariffs didn’t punish foreign producers — they punished us,” said Victor Schwartz, a New York wine distributor who joined the legal challenge. “My business, like thousands of others, has been thrown into chaos.”
Trump’s tariffs, first imposed under the banner of national emergency and later expanded to target China, Canada, and Mexico over drug trafficking concerns, have drawn bipartisan scrutiny. Even some conservative justices appeared skeptical.
Chief Justice John Roberts cut straight to the heart of it: “These are taxes on Americans,” he told the administration’s lawyer. “And that power belongs to Congress.”
Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar, watching from the audience, said she caught a flicker of hope in the justices’ tone. “They clearly understood this was hitting American families,” she remarked afterward.
The administration’s defense rested on the argument that the cited “emergencies” — trade imbalances, fentanyl trafficking — threatened the country’s economic survival. “These are country-killing threats,” the solicitor general insisted.
As arguments wrapped, the contrast outside the Court was striking: a government in shutdown paralysis, and inside, a constitutional debate that could redraw the map of presidential power.
For now, marble walls hold the echo of a nation’s question — how far can one president stretch the word emergency before it snaps?
