WASHINGTON, Nov 6: The US Supreme Court heard arguments on Wednesday over President Donald Trump’s use of sweeping tariffs, a case that could reshape presidential authority and US trade policy. Several justices, including conservatives, questioned whether Trump had exceeded his powers in imposing global import duties under emergency economic laws, the BBC reported.
The case was brought by small businesses and several states, who argued the tariffs amounted to an illegal tax imposed without congressional approval.
The justices appeared skeptical about the White House’s rationale that the tariffs were needed to rebuild US manufacturing and address trade deficits. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, one of Trump’s own appointees, pressed the administration to explain why the tariffs were applied so broadly, asking whether countries like France or Spain could reasonably be seen as national security threats.
Hearing over appointment of 11 SC justices deferred
Billions of dollars in duties are at stake, and if the government loses, it could face massive refund claims from importers, according to the BBC.
The administration has relied on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law that lets presidents regulate trade during national emergencies. Trump invoked it to justify tariffs ranging from 10 to 50 percent on goods from dozens of countries, claiming that trade imbalances and drug trafficking posed “extraordinary threats” to the US.
Government lawyers argued the law gives the president wide latitude to respond to economic dangers. Solicitor General John Sauer warned that limiting these powers would expose the country to “ruthless trade retaliation” and harm national security, the BBC said.
Several justices, though, questioned whether the law truly authorizes such sweeping actions. Chief Justice John Roberts said Trump’s interpretation effectively gives the president unlimited power to impose tariffs “on any product from any country in any amount.”
Justice Neil Gorsuch raised concerns that such a precedent would allow Congress to surrender all its trade authority to the executive. Others asked whether Trump could even use the same logic to impose tariffs to fight climate change. The challengers’ lawyers countered that the IEEPA does not mention tariffs at all and was never intended to override existing trade laws, the BBC mentioned.
The court focused on the distinction between tariffs and taxes, a point several justices found unconvincing in the administration’s argument. Justice Sonia Sotomayor remarked that tariffs “are taxes,” while Justice Brett Kavanaugh said it seemed inconsistent to let a president block imports entirely but not impose minor duties. Sauer maintained that the tariffs were “regulatory,” not revenue-raising, but the justices appeared unconvinced by that distinction, according to the BBC.
The case could affect an estimated $90 billion in import taxes already collected this year, with potential refunds reaching up to $1 trillion if the case drags into next summer. The hearing, which lasted nearly three hours, drew a packed courtroom of business owners and policy observers. Among them was Sarah Wells, a small manufacturer who said the tariffs forced her to halt imports and lay off staff. She left the hearing encouraged, saying the justices “understood the overreach” of Trump’s actions, the BBC added.
