The U.S. Supreme Court found itself at the center of an economic and constitutional storm as justices from both ideological wings challenged the legality of former President Donald Trump’s sweeping global tariffs—a policy that has reshaped America’s trade posture and stirred global markets.
For more than two hours, the court dissected whether a decades-old law designed for national emergencies could lawfully serve as the foundation for Trump’s global tariff blitz. The debate carried undertones far deeper than trade: it was about who truly holds the power to tax and negotiate America’s economic fate—Congress or the Oval Office.
The 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which Trump used to justify tariffs on nearly every major trading partner, was intended to give presidents flexibility during crises. But Chief Justice John Roberts cut sharply through that claim. “These are taxes on Americans,” he said, reminding that Congress, not the executive branch, traditionally holds the constitutional authority to impose them.
The questioning intensified as Roberts floated the “major questions doctrine,” a legal principle demanding explicit congressional approval for executive actions with broad economic impact. “That’s major authority,” he said, noting the law seemed like “a misfit” for Trump’s sweeping trade moves.
Conservative justices, though, were not entirely aligned. Amy Coney Barrett pressed the administration’s lawyer to name any historical precedent where regulating imports equated to imposing tariffs. Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson went further, arguing that IEEPA’s original intent was to limit presidential emergency powers, not expand them.
Still, the court’s conservative tilt offered glimmers of sympathy toward Trump’s argument that the president must have latitude in foreign affairs. Justice Brett Kavanaugh recalled that President Richard Nixon once imposed global tariffs under a similar law. Chief Justice Roberts himself acknowledged that tariffs have served as leverage in Trump’s trade negotiations.
The stakes are immense: the tariffs—expected to generate trillions over a decade—have already pulled in nearly $90 billion this year alone. If struck down, Trump’s administration has signaled it will seek other legal routes to preserve them.
For Trump, who has wielded tariffs like blunt instruments—punishing adversaries, pressuring allies, and linking trade to issues like drug trafficking—the decision could redefine the reach of presidential power.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, wary of executive overreach, voiced the separation-of-powers concern that hovered over the hearing. “What would stop Congress from abdicating all responsibility for foreign commerce—or even war—to the president?” he asked pointedly.
The justices will deliberate in the coming months, but whatever the ruling, it promises to ripple far beyond Washington. The case may not just decide the fate of Trump’s tariffs—it could redraw the boundaries of presidential authority in America’s global economic playbook.
