President Donald Trump’s extensive global tariff program faced intensive scrutiny during a high-profile Supreme Court hearing, raising significant doubts even among conservative justices about the administration’s authority to impose such sweeping duties. The tariffs, which affect goods from nearly every country and are a central pillar of Trump’s economic agenda, are being challenged by small businesses and a coalition of states that claim the president exceeded his powers by effectively levying a tax without congressional approval.
The Supreme Court, currently holding a 6-3 conservative majority, usually takes months to rule on such major cases, but many anticipate a faster decision given this case’s stakes. Several justices questioned the breadth of the tariffs, with Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee, probing whether every nation—from Spain to France—needed to be subject to national security tariffs, pointing to the immense scope of the measures. She noted the potential chaos if billions in collected tariffs were refunded by the government.
The case revolves around the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977, which gives the president authority to regulate trade during declared national emergencies. Trump first invoked IEEPA in February 2025 to impose tariffs on imports from China, Mexico, and Canada, citing drug trafficking as the emergency. He later expanded tariffs to include most countries globally, framing the U.S. trade deficit as an “extraordinary and unusual threat.” The administration argues this law permits such regulatory tariffs and denied the measures are taxation, despite the revenue raised.
Solicitor General John Sauer defended the tariffs as essential tools addressing economic and national security risks, warning that invalidating them would invite “ruthless trade retaliation” and damage the U.S. economy. However, the justices expressed concerns about the constitutional limits of presidential power, with Justice Neil Gorsuch questioning the implications if Congress relinquished all oversight of foreign commerce to the executive branch. Justice Sonia Sotomayor challenged the administration’s claim that tariffs are not taxes, calling this “exactly what they are.”
The hearing lasted nearly three hours, filled with challenging questions about the scope, text, and intent of IEEPA. Observers noted the court’s seriousness in addressing whether such expansive use of emergency powers aligns with constitutional principles separating taxing authority to Congress. A ruling against Trump could require refunding billions in tariffs already collected and reshape the future of presidential trade powers. Trump called the case “one of the most important in our country’s history” and suggested losing would be “devastating.”
Among those impacted is small business owner Sarah Wells, who attended the hearing outside the court. Her company paid approximately $20,000 in unexpected tariffs, halting imports and workforce expansion. Wells felt the justices recognized the administration’s overreach and hoped for a ruling that would rein in these powers.
