President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariff policies came under intense scrutiny at the Supreme Court on Wednesday in a case that could reshape presidential authority and alter global trade relationships. Several conservative justices expressed doubts about the administration’s defense of the import duties that Trump said were necessary to revive U.S. industry and correct trade imbalances.
A coalition of small businesses and states has sued the administration, arguing that Trump exceeded his powers by imposing what they describe as an unlawful tax. With a 6–3 conservative majority, the Supreme Court typically takes months to rule on major issues, but many expect a faster decision in this politically charged test of presidential limits.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, one of Trump’s own appointees, pressed the administration’s lawyer on the scope of the tariffs. “Is it your contention that every country needed to be tariffed because of threats to the defense and industrial base? I mean, Spain? France?” she asked. “I can see it with some countries, but why so many?”
Billions of dollars in tariff payments are at stake. If the government loses, it could be forced to return vast sums already collected, a process Barrett warned could become “a complete mess.”
The White House sent Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer to the hearing. Officials said they were prepared to use other legal tools if the court ruled against them. “The White House is always preparing for Plan B,” press secretary Karoline Leavitt said before the hearing.
Speaking later on Fox News, Trump said the day went well and warned that a loss would be “devastating” for the nation. He called the dispute “one of the most important cases in the history of our country.”
The Emergency Law at the Heart of the Case
The case centers on the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA. The law gives presidents authority to “regulate” trade in response to national emergencies. Trump first invoked it in February to impose tariffs on China, Mexico, and Canada, claiming drug trafficking from those nations was an emergency.
Two months later, he expanded the program, applying tariffs of 10% to 50% on imports from almost every country. He argued that America’s trade deficit posed an “extraordinary and unusual threat” to national security. Those measures took effect in stages through the summer as the U.S. pushed for new trade agreements.
The administration maintains that the power to regulate includes the power to impose tariffs. Officials said the U.S. faced “country-killing and unsustainable” crises that required swift executive action. Solicitor General John Sauer argued that limiting Trump’s powers would expose the nation to “ruthless trade retaliation” and lead to “ruinous economic and national security consequences.”
Justices Push Back on Presidential Power
The justices signaled deep unease with how broadly the administration interprets its authority. “The justification allows tariffs on any product, from any country, in any amount, for any duration,” Chief Justice John Roberts said.
Under the Constitution, Congress—not the president—holds the power to tax. The court has traditionally limited how much of that power lawmakers can delegate to the executive branch. Justice Neil Gorsuch asked, “What would prevent Congress from giving away all responsibility to regulate foreign commerce?” He admitted he was “struggling” to accept Sauer’s interpretation.
Gorsuch then offered a pointed example: “Could the president impose a 50 percent tariff on gas-powered cars and auto parts to deal with the extraordinary threat of climate change?”
Tariffs, Taxes, and Legal Boundaries
Lawyers representing the states and private challengers argued that IEEPA does not mention tariffs and that Congress never intended to give presidents unlimited power to rewrite trade policy. Neil Katyal, representing small businesses, said the law allows embargoes or quotas but not revenue-raising tariffs.
The justices focused on the law’s text and its long history. Presidents have frequently used IEEPA to impose sanctions, but Trump was the first to apply it to tariffs. Sauer insisted tariffs were a “regulatory measure, not a tax.” He said any revenue raised was “incidental,” even though Trump has often bragged about billions collected from tariffs.
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 illogical to let a president block all trade but not impose a small tariff.
Billions at Risk and Small Businesses Waiting
The outcome could affect roughly $90 billion in import taxes already paid—nearly half of all U.S. tariff revenue through September, according to Wells Fargo analysts. Trump officials warned the figure could reach $1 trillion if the court delays its decision until June.
The hearing lasted almost three hours—far longer than scheduled—and drew a packed audience. If the court sides with Trump, it will overturn three lower-court rulings that found the administration exceeded its authority.
Among those waiting outside was Sarah Wells, founder of Sarah Wells Bags, who joined other small business owners on the court steps. Her company, which designs and imports bags for breast pumps, paid around $20,000 in surprise tariffs this year. She stopped imports, changed suppliers, and laid off staff.
After the hearing, she said she felt cautiously hopeful. “They seemed to understand the overreach,” Wells said. “It felt like the justices recognized that this power has to be reined in.”
