Supreme Court Scrutiny Casts Doubt on Trump’s Tariff Power

The Supreme Court on Wednesday appeared skeptical of President Donald Trump’s sweeping use of emergency powers to impose tariffs on imports from nearly every major trading partner, a key element of his second-term economic strategy.

As reported by The New York Times, several justices questioned whether Congress intended to give the president such broad authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977, a law originally meant to constrain, not expand, executive control over trade.

The case, which stems from lawsuits filed by states and small businesses, could redefine presidential trade authority. Over nearly three hours of oral arguments, the justices’ questioning suggested unease with Trump’s interpretation of the statute, which he has used to levy a 10 percent tax on nearly every trading partner, plus higher rates on dozens of countries.

Since taking office for a second term last year, President Trump has used tariffs to raise revenue, pressure foreign governments, and pursue non-trade objectives. So far, he has applied duties to many nations, including Canada, Mexico, China, and the European Union, often invoking national emergencies to justify them.

Speaking after the hearing, Trump defended his approach, saying tariffs have generated “hundreds of billions” in revenue. Federal data show the U.S. collected more than $200 billion from tariffs this year, more than double the 2024 total. He has said the funds help offset his $4 trillion package of tax cuts.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told reporters at the White House, the hearing “went very well,” describing tariff powers as giving the president “the ultimate negotiating authority.”

Still, a ruling against the administration could force the government to refund billions in tariff revenue and curb President Trump’s ability to adjust duties unilaterally.

Legal experts say the decision could have far-reaching implications. “How they resolve this case will have not just massive implications on the economic policy side, but actually will be a harbinger of the court’s relationship with the administration more broadly,” said Stephen I. Vladeck, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center.

Supporters of the tariffs, such as Nick Iacovella, executive vice president of the Coalition for a Prosperous America, call the emergency powers law “absolutely essential” to Trump’s agenda. But even he noted that “if they were to lose the SCOTUS case, they still could have almost the same policy base line as we have now.”