Key takeaways from the U.S. Supreme Court hearing on Trump's tariff case:
Key conservative justices expressed skepticism about the legality of Trump's tariffs. Chief Justice John Roberts stated that these tariffs amounted to “taxing Americans, which has always been at the core of Congress’s power.” Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, both appointed by Trump, also raised probing questions and delved into the arguments made by opponents of the tariffs.
U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer was repeatedly pressed to defend his argument that the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, central to this case, grants Trump the authority to impose hundreds of billions of dollars in tariffs each month.
Debate on tariff refunds and historical precedents: The issue of potential tariff refunds was raised multiple times. Neal Katyal, the attorney representing the small businesses that filed the lawsuit, was questioned by Barrett on how refund procedures would work if his clients prevailed. If the tariffs are overturned, businesses could seek refunds amounting to tens of billions of dollars paid to the U.S. Treasury.Justice Brett Kavanaugh challenged the characterization of Trump’s tariffs as “unprecedented,” noting that former President Richard Nixon had imposed a 10% global tax on all U.S. imports in the 1970s. Kavanaugh also rebutted the argument that a statute must include the word 'tariff' to grant the president the power to impose tariffs.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned the context in which some of Trump’s recent tariffs were implemented, highlighting many of the plaintiffs’ arguments that the president's actions undermined his claim that the levies were imposed to address a national emergency. She remarked: “The president threatened to impose a 10% tax on Canada because they aired an advertisement about tariffs during the World Series. He also imposed a 40% tax on Brazil after its Supreme Court allowed criminal prosecution of one of its former presidents.”
The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to announce its ruling in December.
According to CCTV News, on Wednesday, November 5, the U.S. Supreme Court held arguments on the legality of President Trump's large-scale imposition of tariffs.
During hours of intense debate, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch, both appointed by Trump, raised sharp questions about the stance of the Trump administration. Several conservative justices expressed deep skepticism about the legality of the government's tariffs, signaling an unfavorable outcome for the Trump administration.
The core issue in this case is whether it was legal for Trump to invoke the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs on virtually all trading partners. The act grants the president the authority to 'regulate' imports under emergency conditions but does not explicitly authorize the imposition of tariffs. On Tuesday, Trump warned that this case represents a 'life-or-death' moment for the United States, and an adverse ruling could have 'catastrophic' consequences for the nation’s economic health. The plaintiff companies argued that the erratic tariff policies have driven costs and uncertainty to unbearable levels.
After both sides’ attorneys presented their arguments and faced questioning from the justices, the Supreme Court did not issue a ruling on the case this Wednesday. The court has not announced when the decision will be released. It remains unclear when the ruling will be made public.
If the case is lost, the Trump administration will have to rely on other more restrictive tariff laws and may face refund claims amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars. Treasury Secretary Bessent previously warned in court documents that if the Supreme Court rules the tariffs illegal and delays its decision until next summer, the United States may need to refund at least $750 billion.
This case also constitutes a significant test of the limits of presidential power. According to CCTV News, on May 28 this year, a three-judge panel of the US Court of International Trade based in New York ruled in favor of small business owners and twelve US states, stating that Trump did not have the authority to invoke IEEPA to impose these tariffs. The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit subsequently reviewed the Trump administration’s appeal and, on August 29, upheld the original ruling with a 7-4 vote. However, the court also announced that the ruling would not take effect until October 14 to allow the Trump administration to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Chief Justice Questions Government’s Core Argument
Chief Justice Roberts early in the debate questioned the key precedent upon which the Trump administration relied. He pressed Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing the Trump administration, pointing out that the Dames & Moore v. Regan case heavily cited by the government involved different provisions and “certainly did not involve tariffs.” Roberts, who served as a clerk to Justice William Rehnquist during the writing of that opinion, was intimately familiar with the case.
Roberts further emphasized Congress’s “core authority” over taxation, rejecting the government’s claim that tariffs are not taxes. “The power to tax has always been at the core of Congress’s authority. Allowing the president’s foreign policy powers to override this fundamental power, in my view, would at least create a situation where the two powers—executive and legislative—cancel each other out,” Roberts stated. Companies challenging the tariffs pointed out that ultimately, it is American taxpayers, not foreign firms, who bear the cost of the tariffs.
Roberts also expressed concern about the foreign policy implications of the tariffs. During questioning of Neal Katyal, the attorney representing the plaintiff companies, Roberts noted that tariffs “directly implicate the president’s foreign policy powers” and that Trump’s tariffs had been “quite effective” in achieving specific presidential goals. This stance aligns closely with the government’s argument that the president holds broad authority in foreign affairs.
Trump's appointment of Supreme Court justices expressed strong doubts.
Barrett, a Supreme Court justice appointed by Trump, expressed strong skepticism toward the government’s arguments. She asked Sauer, "Can you point to any other place in the code or any other time in history when the term 'regulatory import' has been used?" When Sauer hesitated, Barrett pressed further.
Barrett also questioned why all countries were subject to 'reciprocal tariffs.' "Do you think every country needs to be subjected to tariffs because they pose a threat to national defense and the industrial base? I mean, Spain, France? I can understand certain countries, but explain to me why so many countries need to be subjected to reciprocal tariffs," she asked Sauer. Sauer argued that reciprocal tariffs were intentionally designed to be broad 'because the state of emergency is so extensive.'
Gorsuch, another Supreme Court justice appointed by Trump, pressed Sauer on the issue of Congress delegating authority to the president. Gorsuch has long advocated for the 'non-delegation doctrine,' which aims to maintain clear boundaries between congressional and presidential powers.
Gorsuch asked, "If Congress can delegate the constitutional power to impose tariffs, what else can it delegate? Further, could it delegate the power to declare war?" He further questioned, "What happens if the president vetoes legislation to reclaim these powers? In reality, once Congress relinquishes its powers, it cannot take them back. This is a one-way mechanism of gradual but continuous concentration of power in the executive branch."
Justice Brett Kavanaugh also expressed skepticism about the government's historical argument that former President Nixon was allowed by courts to impose tariffs under the predecessor of this law.
Government's chief lawyer emphasized emergency authorization.
Solicitor General Sauer, representing the Trump administration, stated in his opening remarks that Trump's tariffs helped the president achieve significant trade agreements to boost the U.S. economy. He said the IEEPA grants the president 'substantial authority' to address 'major issues.'
Sauer insisted that 'these are regulatory tariffs, not revenue-generating tariffs,' and 'their revenue generation is merely incidental.' However, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor countered, "You say tariffs are not taxes, but they are exactly that. They generate revenue from American citizens." She noted that no president other than Trump had ever used this law to impose tariffs.
Facing questioning from liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sauer engaged in a heated exchange. Jackson emphasized, "Congress clearly sought to limit the president's emergency powers through IEEPA. Therefore, interpreting a law intended to constrain presidential power as Congress wanting the president to have virtually unlimited power seems inconsistent."
Sauer also faced skepticism from conservative justices regarding the president's authority to declare a state of emergency. Liberal Justice Elena Kagan appeared to indirectly criticize Trump’s repeated declarations of emergencies this year: "You seem to think that emergency declarations are not subject to review. Yet when we recently dealt with cases involving presidential emergency powers, we found ourselves perpetually in an emergency—constantly so, concerning roughly half the world."
The plaintiff’s attorney emphasized the separation of constitutional powers.
Neal Katyal, the lawyer representing businesses and state governments challenging the tariffs, began his argument by stating directly: "Tariffs are taxes. Our founding fathers granted the power to levy taxes exclusively to Congress." He added: "We believe that the IEEPA does not permit undermining the global tariff framework."
Katyal pointed out that while the government argues reciprocal tariffs are intended to address trade deficits, Trump imposed a 39% tariff on Switzerland, a U.S. ally, despite the U.S. maintaining a trade surplus with Switzerland. "No other president has ever done anything like this," he said.
The tariffs imposed by Trump set a baseline rate of 10% for many countries, with rates as high as 50% on goods from India and Brazil. According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, if the tariffs remain in place, they will generate an additional $3 trillion in revenue for the U.S. by 2035. The organization noted that in the second half of fiscal year 2025, the federal government collected $151 billion in tariffs, "an increase of nearly 300% compared to the same period in fiscal year 2024."
Conservative Justices Thomas and Alito posed hypothetical questions to explore the potential implications of limiting presidential powers. Thomas asked whether the president could impose tariffs as leverage if major trading partners like China detained U.S. citizens as hostages. Alito inquired whether the president could impose tariffs on an enemy country about to go to war with the U.S. Katyal responded that the answer was no, as tariffs, like taxes, are revenue-generating measures.
The case was brought by a group of small and medium-sized enterprises and twelve states. A lower court had previously ruled that Trump did not have the authority to invoke the law to impose so-called reciprocal tariffs or fentanyl-related tariffs targeting Canada, China, and Mexico. Treasury Secretary Bessent, who attended Wednesday’s hearing at Trump's request, stated earlier this week: "I am here to emphasize that this is an economic emergency." The Supreme Court has not yet indicated when it will issue its ruling.
AI Portfolio Strategist!One-click insight into holdings,Fully grasp opportunities and risks.
Editor/Joryn
