Most Supreme Court Justices Are Skeptical of Trump’s Tariffs (1)

Key US Supreme Court justices expressed skepticism about the legality of President Donald Trump’s sweeping global tariffs, in a case that could undercut his signature economic policy.

Hearing arguments in Washington Wednesday, three conservative justices questioned Trump’s use of an emergency-powers law to collect tens of billions of dollars in tariffs a month.

Chief Justice John Roberts said the tariffs were an “imposition of taxes on Americans and that has always been the core power of Congress.” Trump-appointed Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett also asked skeptical questions, though all three also probed arguments pressed by tariff opponents.

A decision against Trump could force more than $100 billion in refunds, remove a major burden on the US importers that are paying the tariffs, and blunt an all-purpose cudgel the president has wielded against trading partners. More broadly, it would be by far the Supreme Court’s most significant pushback against Trump’s assertions of powers that go well beyond those claimed by his White House predecessors.

Read More: Trump Tariffs Fate Rides on Supreme Court Justices He Picked

A ruling could come as quickly as the end of the year, given the ultra-expedited schedule the Supreme Court has set so far.

The case involves Trump’s April 2 “Liberation Day” tariffs, which impose taxes of 10-50% on most US imports depending on the originating country. Trump says those duties are warranted to address the longstanding national trade deficit. The high court clash also covers separate tariffs Trump said he imposed on Canada, Mexico and China to address fentanyl trafficking.

Authority Questioned

Trump says his tariffs are authorized under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a law that gives the president a panoply of tools to address national security, foreign policy and economic emergencies. IEEPA, as the law is known, doesn’t mention tariffs as one of those powers, though a key provision says the president can “regulate” the “importation” of property to deal with a crisis.

Barrett questioned whether that phrase was enough to let the president implement tariffs.

“Can you point to any other place in the code or any other time in history where that phrase together ‘regulate importation’ has been used to confer tariff-imposing authority?” Barrett asked US Solicitor General D. John Sauer, the government’s top Supreme Court lawyer.

Gorsuch indicated alarm at the reach of the Trump administration’s contention that Congress had delegated its constitutional authority over tariffs to the president.

Under the government’s logic, “what would prohibit Congress from just abdicating all responsibility to regulate foreign commerce – for that matter, declare war – to the president?” Gorsuch asked Sauer.

The court is considering two separate lawsuits filed by small businesses along with a third case pressed by 12 Democratic state attorneys general. All three lower courts to have ruled on the issue declared the tariffs to be unlawful.

Should Trump lose, administration officials say most of the levies could be imposed using other, more complicated legal tools. Trump’s tariffs on steel, aluminum and automobiles were put in place under a different law, so are not directly affected.

The cases are Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, 25-250, and Learning Resources v. Trump, 24-1287.

--With assistance from Justin Wise.

To contact the reporter on this story:
Greg Stohr in Washington at gstohr@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story:
Elizabeth Wasserman at ewasserman2@bloomberg.net

© 2025 Bloomberg L.P. All rights reserved. Used with permission.