Supreme Court justices skeptical of Trump's justification for tariffs

by · UPI

Nov. 5 (UPI) -- U.S. Supreme Court justices appeared heavily skeptical of the government's arguments for using emergency powers to impose tariffs during oral arguments Wednesday.

Even conservative justices delivered pointed questions to Solicitor General D. John Sauer, who defended the administration's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Lower courts have ruled that Trump overstepped his authority in doing so.

The Trump administration has been accused by educational toy manufacturer Learning Resources Inc. of misusing the IEEPA to impose tariffs on nearly all countries, along with higher tariffs on specific goods and nations.

Lawyer Neil Katyal, a former acting solicitor general, represents the group of small businesses that sued the administration over the tariff policy and then consolidated their case with the Learning Resources Inc. lawsuit, The New York Times reported.

In its lawsuit, filed in April, the company argued that Trump's illegal use of the IEEPA, usurping the constitutional authority of Congress to impose tariffs, has resulted in cratering profits that have forced it to lay off employees and increase prices.

The IEEPA was passed in 1977 to allow a president to use executive authority to sanction foreign terrorists or hostile nations that pose a threat to the United States.

Learning Resources Inc. noted in its lawsuit that "the statue does not mention tariffs or duties, and in the five decades and eight administrations since its enactment, no president besides President Trump has ever invoked IEEPA to impose a duty or tariff."

Arguments lasted about 2 1/2 hours, and the court finished at 2 p.m.

The president has said that the IEEPA and the Constitution allow him to impose tariffs to fix trade imbalances and slow the tide of fentanyl entering the United States. He argues that both are a threat to national security.

"The vehicle is imposition of taxes on Americans, and that has always been the core power of Congress," Chief Justice John Roberts said.

Sauer said Wednesday that the tariffs are "regulatory ... not revenue-raising tariffs."

"The fact that they raise revenue was only incidental," he said.

Katyal countered: "Tariffs are taxes."

Trump has also repeatedly boasted that the tariffs have raised revenue for the United States. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Government has said tariffs have brought in $195 billion this year, NPR said.

The court is expected to decide the matter by the end of its term in June, but the decision could come sooner.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who attended the hearing at Trump's request, according to CNN, earlier this week said his presence at the hearing is "to emphasize that this is an economic emergency."

The law, according to the administration, gives the president the power to "regulate" imports during an emergency, which it has interpreted as including the use of tariffs.

According to The New York Times, Trump has used IEEPA to impose tariffs on roughly 29% of all U.S. imports, affecting more than $300 billion of imports.

If the court sides with the Trump administration, business leaders have raised concern that he will continue to jostle tariff rates up and down as part of his methods for negotiating trade deals.

If the court sides with the plaintiffs, the Trump administration has said it would rely on other laws to impose tariffs, although the laws in some cases include limits and it is possible that tariffs already collected may have to be refunded, CNN reported.

Read More