Supreme Court to weigh Trump tariff powers in blockbuster case

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

The Supreme Court is weighing the legality of President Donald Trump’s use of an emergency law to unilaterally impose sweeping tariffs on most U.S. trading partners on Wednesday — a blockbuster case, and one that experts say stretches far beyond matters of economic policy. 

At issue before the court is whether the president can use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose two sweeping sets of tariffs on most countries, including a 10% global tariff Trump announced in April and the higher so-called reciprocal tariffs imposed on nearly 50 countries. Trump said at the time that trade deficits amounted to "the precipice of an economic and national-security crisis" sufficient to trigger his powers under IEEPA.

The two consolidated cases, Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, mark the first time during Trump's second term that the Supreme Court will review his policies fully on its merits, rather than through the so-called shadow docket, where justices have often sided with the administration in granting temporary stays and other emergency actions.

Unlike other cases, this one also centers on an issue Trump considers to be the signature economic policy of his second term. 

TRUMP TARIFF PLAN FACES UNCERTAIN FUTURE AS COURT BATTLES INTENSIFY

"Tomorrow’s United States Supreme Court case is, literally, LIFE OR DEATH for our country," Trump said in a post on social media Tuesday night, adding that, without it, the U.S. is "virtually defenseless against other countries who have, for years, taken advantage of us."

Lawyers for the Trump administration have argued in lower courts that the IEEPA allows a president to act in response to "unusual and extraordinary threats" and in cases where a national emergency has been declared. Trump has claimed that deep and "sustained" trade deficits amount to a national emergency that allows him to invoke IEEPA.

Plaintiffs counter that in the 50 years since its passage, the law has never been used by a president to impose tariffs and that permitting the president to do so would drastically expand his powers at the expense of other branches of government. They contended to lower courts that Trump’s use of IEEPA to address the trade deficit is unlawful, pointing out that, by the administration’s own admission, the trade deficit has persisted for nearly 50 years, which they say undermines any claim of an "unusual and extraordinary" emergency.

US COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE SIDES WITH TRUMP IN TARIFF CASE

Justices on Wednesday immediately jumped into the "major question doctrine," and whether that issue could be invoked in the context of foreign affairs.

Plaintiffs in the case have repeatedly argued that Trump’s use of IEEPA violates the major questions doctrine — which requires Congress to be explicit when it hands the executive branch powers to make decisions with a vast economic or political significance.

"Congress does not (and could not) use such vague terminology to grant the executive virtually unconstrained taxing power of such staggering economic effect — literally trillions of dollars — shouldered by American businesses and consumers," they told the court in an earlier briefing.

U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer acknowledged to the justices that IEEPA does not explicitly give an executive the power to regulate tariffs, though he argued that the power to tariff is "the natural common sense inference" of the 1977 law.

Justices pressed Sauer as to why Trump invoked IEEPA to impose his sweeping tariffs, noting that doing so would be the first time a president used the law to set import taxes on trading partners.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett grilled Sauer at length on this issue, asking if he could point to any other place in the code or any other time in history where that phrase together, 'regulate importation' has been used to confer tariff-imposing authority?"

They noted that, unlike other laws, IEEPA does not mention the word tariff, and some of the justices seemed skeptical of the administration's assertion that they do not need additional permissions from Congress to use the law in such a sweeping manner.

TRUMP WARNS SUPREME COURT TARIFF SHOWDOWN IS ‘LIFE OR DEATH’ FOR AMERICA

Justice Elena Kagan pressed Sauer on the Trump administration's contention that IEEPA is only narrowly reviewable by the courts.

"We agree that it's a major power, but it's in the context of a statute that is explicitly conferring major powers," Sauer said. "That the point of the statute is to confer major powers to address major questions — which are emergencies."

"So it would be unusual to say, look at the statute, say we're not going to find a major power. Well, but the exercise of the power is to impose tariffs. "

That prompted a follow-up question from Gorsuch, who asked, "Could Congress delegate to the president the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations as he sees fit and collect duties as he sees fit?" 

Gorsuch appeared skeptical of the administration's use of IEEPA, which would essentially cut out congressional oversight on the tariffs enacted under the law, and limit judicial review.

Justices Barrett and Gorsuch used their time to ask about the balance of powers, and how Congress could ever get the tariff delegation back if it was allocated to Trump under IEEPA.

Both justices posed a string of pointed questions to Sauer on the broad latitude that would be granted to Trump under the law, and their skepticism could prove telling in how the court eventually decides the case. 

It's unclear how the court might rule on the matter, thoughTrump's laser-focus on the case was on sharp display, including with the attendance of Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent.

Lower courts sided with plaintiffs from Democratic states and a coalition of small businesses against Trump, with a three-judge panel for the Court of International Trade ruling this summer that Trump's authorities under IEEPA are not "unbounded."

Appealing to the Supreme Court, the Justice Department has argued that "denial of tariff authority would expose our nation to trade retaliation without effective defenses." 

Sauer said in an earlier court filing that nullifying the tariffs would have "catastrophic consequences" for national security and global supply chains.

Experts say the impact of this case could stretch far beyond tariffs. A ruling in Trump's favor could cement a broad precedent for future administrations, which could then invoke national emergencies as a pretext to act without congressional review on a wide range of issues.

Ultimately, "this is a separation of powers issue," Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel for the Liberty Justice Center and counsel for plaintiffs in one of the consolidated cases, told Fox News Digital in an interview.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP 

"It's not about this president," he said, speaking on the eve of the oral arguments. "It's about all presidents and the power that they have under the Constitution, and the powers that they don't have under the Constitution, and whether Congress can delegate those powers — and, if it does, how broad can those powers be?"

"Everybody should be concerned about that," he said. "Because even if you like what the president is doing now, you might not like what a future president does with the same power."

Breanne Deppisch is a national politics reporter for Fox News Digital covering the Trump administration, with a focus on the Justice Department, FBI and other national news. She previously covered national politics at the Washington Examiner and The Washington Post, with additional bylines in Politico Magazine, the Colorado Gazette and others. You can send tips to Breanne at Breanne.Deppisch@fox.com, or follow her on X at @breanne_dep.