By Anjali Sharma
WASHINGTON – US Supreme Court on Thursday appeared skeptical of President Donald Trump’s sweeping global tariffs under an emergency authority, in a landmark case that could redefine presidential powers over trade.
The nine justices weighed whether Trump lawfully used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 to levy tariffs on imports from more than 100 countries, measures that have reshaped global commerce, raised prices for US consumers, and provoked retaliation from trading partners.
The dispute stems from two lawsuits filed by 12 US states, led by Oregon, and several small businesses, which argue that the IEEPA does not authorize a President to impose tariffs unilaterally.
They contend that the power to tax imports rests solely with Congress, under the US Constitution’s separation of powers.
They argued for the petitioners, Indian-American lawyer Neal Katyal argued that when Congress enacted IEEPA, it did not hand “the President the power to overhaul the entire tariff system and the American economy in the process, allowing him to set and reset tariffs on any and every product from any and every country, at any and all times.”
Chief Justice John Roberts questioned the government’s broad reading of the law, noted that “the vehicle is the imposition of taxes on Americans, and that has always been a core power of Congress.”
Justice Brett Kavanaugh mentioned Trump’s 50 per cent tariffs on India in the context of defining “emergency” situations.
“Think about India right now, the tariff on India, that’s designed to help settle the Russia-Ukraine war. I don’t pretend to be an expert, but if that’s gone, that’s a tool that’s designed…talking about foreign-facing the most serious crisis in the world, and that’s out of the window. So, I think it’s just contextually an emergency. It’s just a bit unusual to read it that way,” he added.
US Solicitor General John Sauer, representing the administration, argued that the tariffs were a legitimate exercise of executive power to “regulate foreign commerce” and that any revenue raised was “incidental.”
He warned that stripping the President of tariff authority would “undermine America’s negotiating leverage” in future trade disputes.
Trump called tariffs his “favourite economic and diplomatic tool,” earlier defended his actions on social media, saying his ability to “quickly and nimbly use the power of tariffs” was vital to securing “fair and sustainable deals” with countries like China.
Lower courts have ruled against Trump’s interpretation. In August, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that while IEEPA grants broad emergency powers, Trump’s tariffs exceeded that authority.
International Trade Court struck down his Liberation Day and fentanyl-related tariffs on China and Canada.
Over 40 briefs have been submitted to the Supreme Court, including one from 207 lawmakers, among them only one Republican Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski, who argued that “neither the word ‘duties’ nor ‘tariffs’ appears anywhere in the IEEPA.”
A ruling against the government could force billions in refunds, possibly exceeding $100 billion in duties collected since 2022, potentially causing significant market disruption.
The court’s decision, expected in early 2026, may have far-reaching consequences for US trade policy, presidential authority, and America’s global economic relationships.
Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.