Supreme Court Hears Challenge to Trump’s Emergency Tariffs

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday over President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs, putting a central tool of his economic and foreign policy squarely before the high court.

Background

The dispute covers a broad set of duties first announced in April that apply to nearly all U.S. trading partners, together with earlier February levies targeting imports from Canada, China and Mexico. The administration says it imposed the tariffs by declaring separate national emergencies under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

Earlier this year, two federal trial courts and a U.S. appeals court concluded that the emergency statute the president invoked does not give him unchecked authority to impose tariffs, noting that the Constitution vests tariff-setting power in Congress. The question of whether the president exceeded federal law now comes before a conservative-led Supreme Court.

Arguments and key questions

Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing the government, opened the arguments. Neal Katyal, who briefly served as acting U.S. solicitor general under President Barack Obama, argued for a coalition of small businesses challenging the duties, and Oregon Solicitor General Benjamin Gutman represented a group of mostly Democratic-led states.

Chief Justice John Roberts intervened early, asking whether the government was relying too heavily on an older precedent involving a different section of the emergency-powers statute. Justice Clarence Thomas pressed the court’s major-questions doctrine — the principle that Congress must clearly authorize executive action on issues of vast economic or political significance — and whether that doctrine applies in foreign-affairs contexts.

Courtroom dynamics and schedule

The court allotted 80 minutes for oral argument, but justices frequently exceed time limits; the bench was expected to be active and questioning to run well into the afternoon. The court accepted the case on an accelerated timetable, which could signal a relatively quick decision compared with longer Supreme Court dockets.

Political and legal stakes

The tariff challenge has drawn support and opposition across the political spectrum. Conservative-leaning groups such as the Cato Institute, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Goldwater Institute filed briefs urging the court to uphold lower-court rulings against the tariffs; the Trump-aligned America First Policy Institute has defended the administration. Former national security officials, judges, economists and hundreds of small businesses have urged the court to strike the measures down.

Economic impact so far

The tariffs have generated significant revenue but have shown limited signs of broader economic benefit. Customs duties totaled $195 billion in the fiscal year ended Sept. 30 — up from $77 billion the prior year — with $89 billion tied to the emergency declarations now under challenge. Still, tariffs accounted for less than 4% of total federal receipts in fiscal 2025.

Independent indicators show strains in manufacturing and trade-sensitive sectors. Since the April tariff announcements, some manufacturers reported job reductions and a manufacturing survey cited contraction in activity for several months, with many respondents blaming tariffs for disruptions.

Policy and constitutional implications

The administration has emphasized the role of tariffs as a foreign-policy tool, arguing that courts should defer to the executive in national-security and international affairs. Opponents counter that tariffs function as a domestic tax ultimately paid by U.S. importers, and that taxation and tariff authority belong to Congress.

If the court rejects the administration’s emergency-based authority, experts say the president would still retain other statutory tools to impose import restrictions, though not the near-unlimited authority the administration asserts under IEEPA. Possible alternatives include trade statutes used in prior administrations and a rarely used Depression-era law that permits steep duties under certain conditions.

Court security and attendance

Security around the Supreme Court was heightened for the arguments. President Trump said he would not attend; Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent was reported to be expected in the audience.

What to watch next

Observers will watch for how the justices apply the major-questions doctrine, how they interpret IEEPA’s scope, and whether Chief Justice Roberts’ questions foreshadow a pivotal vote. A decision could have major economic and constitutional consequences and — given the expedited schedule — may arrive sooner than typical high-profile rulings.