President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariff program faced intense scrutiny at the Supreme Court on Wednesday, in a case that could redefine the limits of presidential power and reshape U.S. trade policy. Several conservative justices questioned the administration’s justification for the tariffs, which Trump said were necessary to revive American manufacturing and correct trade imbalances.
Small businesses and multiple states challenged the measures, claiming the president exceeded his authority by imposing what they called an unlawful tax. With a 6–3 conservative majority, the Supreme Court usually takes months to issue major rulings, but observers expect a faster decision given the high economic and political stakes.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, one of Trump’s appointees, pressed the administration’s lawyers on the scope of the tariffs. “Do you contend that every country posed a threat to our defense and industrial base? Spain? France?” she asked. “I can see it with some, but not all.”
Billions of dollars in tariff payments are at stake. If the administration loses, the government could be forced to refund vast sums already collected, which Barrett warned could become “a complete mess.”
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer attended the hearing. Officials said the White House was ready with alternatives if the court ruled against it. “The White House is always preparing for Plan B,” press secretary Karoline Leavitt said.
Later, Trump told Fox News the hearing went well. He warned that losing would be “devastating for the country” and called the case “one of the most important in American history.”
The Emergency Law Driving the Dispute
The case centers on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law allowing presidents to regulate trade during national emergencies. Trump first invoked it in February to impose tariffs on China, Mexico, and Canada, citing drug trafficking from those nations as an emergency.
In April, he expanded the tariffs, levying duties from 10% to 50% on imports from nearly every country. He argued that the U.S. trade deficit itself posed an “extraordinary and unusual threat.” The tariffs took effect gradually as the administration pushed other countries to negotiate new trade agreements.
The administration argued that the power to regulate trade includes the authority to impose tariffs. Solicitor General John Sauer warned that invalidating Trump’s actions could expose the U.S. to “ruthless trade retaliation” and “ruinous economic and national security consequences.” He described the crises as “country-killing and unsustainable.”
Justices Press on Limits of Executive Power
The justices questioned the broad reach of presidential authority. “The justification allows tariffs on any product, from any country, at any rate, for any period,” said Chief Justice John Roberts.
Under the Constitution, Congress—not the president—controls taxation. Courts have long limited how much of that authority lawmakers can delegate. Justice Neil Gorsuch asked, “What would prevent Congress from giving away all responsibility for regulating foreign commerce?” He said he was “struggling” to accept the administration’s argument.
Gorsuch also raised a hypothetical: “Could the president impose a 50 percent tariff on gas-powered cars to address the extraordinary threat of climate change?”
Tariffs or Taxes: The Key Legal Debate
Opposing lawyers argued that IEEPA does not mention tariffs and that Congress never intended to grant unlimited trade powers. Neil Katyal, representing small businesses, said the law allows embargoes or quotas—but not revenue-raising tariffs.
The justices closely examined the law’s text and history. While past presidents have used IEEPA to impose sanctions, Trump was the first to apply it to tariffs. Sauer argued tariffs were “regulatory measures, not taxes,” saying any revenue raised was “incidental,” despite Trump’s claims of billions collected.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor rejected that distinction. “You say tariffs aren’t taxes, but that’s exactly what they are,” she said. Justice Brett Kavanaugh added it seemed inconsistent to let the president block trade entirely but not impose even a small tariff.
Billions at Risk for Businesses
Analysts estimate the case could affect $90 billion in import taxes already paid—nearly half of U.S. tariff revenue through September. Officials warned that figure could grow to $1 trillion if the court delays its ruling until June.
The hearing lasted nearly three hours, far longer than scheduled, drawing a packed courtroom. If the Supreme Court sides with Trump, it would overturn three lower-court rulings that found the administration exceeded its authority.
Outside the court, small business owners watched closely. Among them was Sarah Wells, founder of Sarah Wells Bags, which designs and imports bags for breast pumps. Her company paid about $20,000 in unexpected tariffs this year, then halted imports, shifted suppliers, and laid off staff.
After the hearing, Wells said she felt cautiously optimistic. “They seemed to recognize the overreach,” she said. “It felt like the justices understood that this power must be restrained.”
