Conservative Supreme Court justices appear skeptical of Trump’s sweeping
unilateral tariffs
[November 06, 2025]
By LINDSAY WHITEHURST
WASHINGTON (AP) — A majority of Supreme Court justices seemed skeptical
Wednesday about President Donald Trump ’s ability to unilaterally impose
far-reaching tariffs, putting at risk a cornerstone of his agenda in the
biggest legal test yet of his boundary-pushing presidency.
Three conservative justices raised questions about whether an emergency
law gives Trump near-limitless power to set and change duties on
imports, with potentially trillion-dollar implications for the global
economy.
The court’s three liberal justices also appeared dubious, so at least
two conservative votes could limit Trump’s tariff power under the law.
It likely would not end it altogether, however.
The case is the first major piece of Trump’s agenda to come squarely
before the nation’s highest court, which he helped shape by naming three
of the nine justices in his first term. The conservative majority has so
far been reluctant to check his extraordinary flex of executive power in
short-term orders in cases ranging from high-profile firings to major
federal funding cuts. That could change with a more detailed ruling in
the tariff case, though it will likely take weeks or months to come
down.
The Constitution says Congress has the power to levy tariffs. But, in a
first, the Trump administration argues that an emergency law allowing
the president to regulate importation also includes imposing tariffs.
Justice Neil Gorsuch appeared concerned that could shift too much
congressional power to the president on an issue that helped spark the
American Revolution.
“It’s a one-way ratchet toward the gradual but continual accretion of
power in the executive branch and away from the people’s elected
representatives,” he said, later suggesting the “power to reach into the
pockets of the American people” must be "done locally, through our
elected representatives.”
Chief Justice John Roberts raised questions about whether the
emergency-power law allowed for tariffs on “any product, from any
country, in any amount, for any length of time."
Justice Amy Coney Barrett also pressed the government on the broad range
of Trump's action. “Spain? France? I mean, I could see it with some
countries but explain to me why as many countries needed to be subject
to the reciprocal tariff policy.”
Regulating commerce or raising money?
Solicitor General D. John Sauer said lopsided trade deals are a “global
problem,” and Trump’s tariffs are primarily about regulating foreign
commerce to be fairer, rather than raising money that would encroach on
Congress's taxation power. “The fact that they raise revenue is only
incidental,” he said.
Within hours, though, Trump said his tariffs would help slash the
deficit. “My tariffs are bringing in hundreds of billions of dollars,”
he said in a speech to business leaders in Miami.
Trump has called the case one of the most important in the country’s
history and said a ruling against him would be catastrophic for the
economy.
The arguments were about two sets of tariffs. The first came in February
on imports from Canada, China and Mexico after Trump declared a national
emergency over drug trafficking. The second involves the sweeping
“reciprocal” tariffs on most countries that Trump announced in April.
[to top of second column]
|
An American flag flies at half-staff outside the Supreme Court on
Wednesday, Nov. 5, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein)
Multiple lawsuits have been filed over those tariffs, including a
case from a dozen largely Democratic-leaning states and another from
small businesses focused on everything from plumbing supplies to
women’s cycling apparel. They argue the 1977 emergency powers law
Trump used doesn’t even mention tariffs, and no president before has
used it to impose them.
Lower courts have agreed that the tariffs were an illegal use of the
1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, though
some appeals court judges did side with the Trump administration and
found the law gives the president broad power.
Who pays the price
At the Supreme Court, much of the argument centered around the legal
principle known as the major questions doctrine. It doomed some
signature policies of former President Joe Biden, including his $500
billion student loan forgiveness program.
The challengers say Trump’s tariffs should get the same treatment,
since they’ll have a much greater economic effect, raising some $3
trillion over the next decade.
The government, on the other hand, said the tariffs are different
because they’re a major part of Trump's approach to foreign affairs,
an area where the courts should not be second-guessing the
president.
Justices like Brett Kavanaugh seemed receptive to that argument. “So
you’re forcing the president to respond to an emergency ... and
you’re taking away the president’s suite of tools,” he said. “That
just seems a bit unusual.”
Roberts also seemed concerned about going too far in restricting the
president’s foreign affairs power.
The challengers, though, say the tariffs amount to a domestic tax
because they are largely paid by Americans.
Attorney Neal Katyal, representing a group of small business
challenging the tariffs, argued that Congress would cede control of
tariffs for good if the court sided with Trump.
“We will never get this power back if the government wins this case.
What president wouldn’t veto legislation to rein this power in and
pull out the tariff power?” he said.
If Trump eventually loses at the high court, the aftermath could be
complicated, if the government must issue refunds. So far, the
Treasury has collected almost $90 billion from the import taxes the
president has imposed under the emergency powers law.
But tariffs likely won't be going away. Trump could still impose
tariffs under other laws, though they have more limitations on the
speed and severity with which he could act.
All contents © copyright 2025 Associated Press. All rights reserved |
