President Donald Trump’s broad tariff policies faced rigorous questioning at the Supreme Court on Wednesday in a case that could redefine the limits of presidential authority and affect global trade. Several conservative justices expressed skepticism about the administration’s justification for the import duties, which Trump said were necessary to revive U.S. manufacturing and address trade imbalances.
Small businesses and multiple states challenged the tariffs, arguing that the president exceeded his legal authority by imposing what they described as an unlawful tax. The Supreme Court, with its 6–3 conservative majority, usually takes months to rule on major cases, but observers expect a faster decision due to the political and economic stakes.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, one of Trump’s appointees, questioned the administration’s legal team on the broad reach of the tariffs. “Do you contend that every country posed a threat to our defense and industrial base? Spain? France?” she asked. “I can see it with some, but not all.”
Billions of dollars in tariff payments are at stake. If the administration loses, the government may have to return vast sums already collected, which Barrett warned could become “a complete mess.”
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer attended the hearing. Officials said the White House was ready with alternative legal options if the court ruled against it. “The White House is always preparing for Plan B,” press secretary Karoline Leavitt said before the hearing.
Later, Trump told Fox News that the hearing went well. He warned that a loss would be “devastating” for the country and called the case “one of the most important in American history.”
The Law Behind the Dispute
The case revolves around the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law that allows presidents to regulate trade during national emergencies. Trump first invoked it in February to impose tariffs on China, Mexico, and Canada, citing drug trafficking from those countries as an emergency.
In April, he expanded the tariffs, levying duties of 10% to 50% on goods from nearly every country. He argued that the U.S. trade deficit itself posed an “extraordinary and unusual threat.” The tariffs took effect gradually while the administration pushed other countries to negotiate new trade agreements.
The administration argued that the power to regulate trade includes the power to impose tariffs. Solicitor General John Sauer warned that invalidating Trump’s actions could expose the U.S. to “ruthless trade retaliation” and “ruinous economic and national security consequences.” He described the crises as “country-killing and unsustainable.”
Justices Examine Limits on Presidential Authority
The justices expressed concern about the expansive powers claimed by the administration. “The justification allows tariffs on any product, from any country, at any rate, for any period,” Chief Justice John Roberts said.
Under the Constitution, Congress—not the president—controls taxation. The court has long emphasized limits on how much power lawmakers can delegate. Justice Neil Gorsuch asked, “What would stop Congress from handing over all responsibility for regulating foreign commerce?” He said he was “struggling” to accept the administration’s reasoning.
Gorsuch also posed a sharp hypothetical: “Could the president impose a 50 percent tariff on gas-powered cars to address the extraordinary threat of climate change?”
The Debate Over Tariffs vs. Taxes
Lawyers for states and private businesses argued that IEEPA does not mention tariffs and that Congress never intended to give presidents open-ended authority over trade. Neil Katyal, representing small businesses, said the law allows embargoes or quotas—but not revenue-raising tariffs.
The justices closely examined the law’s text and history. While past presidents have used IEEPA for sanctions, Trump was the first to apply it to tariffs. Sauer argued tariffs were “regulatory measures, not taxes,” and said revenue generation was “incidental,” despite Trump’s public claims of billions collected.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor rejected that claim. “You say tariffs aren’t taxes, but that’s exactly what they are,” she said. Justice Brett Kavanaugh added that it seemed inconsistent to allow the president to block trade entirely but not impose even a small tariff.
Billions at Risk for Businesses
Analysts estimate that the case could affect $90 billion in import taxes already paid—nearly half of U.S. tariff revenue through September. Officials warned that the amount could grow to $1 trillion if the court delays its ruling until June.
The hearing lasted nearly three hours, far longer than scheduled, and drew a full courtroom. If the Supreme Court sides with Trump, it would overturn three lower-court rulings that had found his actions exceeded presidential authority.
Outside the court, small business owners followed the hearing closely. Among them was Sarah Wells, founder of Sarah Wells Bags, which designs and imports bags for breast pumps. Her company paid around $20,000 in unexpected tariffs this year, then halted imports, shifted suppliers, and laid off staff.
After the hearing, Wells said she felt cautiously optimistic. “They seemed to recognize the overreach,” she said. “It felt like the justices understood that this power must be restrained.”
