President Donald Trump’s sweeping use of tariffs faced sharp questioning at the Supreme Court on Wednesday in a case that could redefine the boundaries of presidential power and reshape U.S. trade policy. Several conservative justices openly challenged the administration’s defense of import duties that Trump said were necessary to revive American manufacturing and fix trade imbalances.
A coalition of small businesses and states has sued the administration, arguing that Trump overstepped his constitutional authority by imposing what they call an unlawful tax. The Supreme Court, which holds a 6–3 conservative majority, often takes months to rule on major cases, but many expect a faster decision in this high-stakes dispute over executive power.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, one of Trump’s own appointees, questioned the logic behind the tariffs. “Is it your contention that every country needed to be tariffed because of threats to the defense and industrial base? I mean, Spain? France?” she asked. “I can see it with some countries, but why so many?”
Billions of dollars in tariff payments could be at risk. If the administration loses, the government might have to refund huge sums already collected—a process Barrett warned could turn into “a complete mess.”
The White House sent Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer to the hearing. Officials said they would rely on other legal authorities if the court ruled against them. “The White House is always preparing for Plan B,” said press secretary Karoline Leavitt.
Speaking later on Fox News, Trump said the hearing went well and warned that a loss would be “devastating” for the country. He called the dispute “one of the most important cases in the history of our nation.”
A Legal Battle Over Emergency Powers
The case centers on the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA. The law allows presidents to “regulate” trade during national emergencies. Trump first invoked it in February to impose tariffs on China, Mexico, and Canada, saying drug trafficking from those nations created an emergency.
He expanded the action in April, ordering tariffs of 10% to 50% on goods from nearly every country. He argued that the U.S. trade deficit posed an “extraordinary and unusual threat” to national security. Those tariffs rolled out gradually through the summer as the administration pushed other nations to negotiate trade deals.
The White House argues that the power to regulate includes the power to impose tariffs. Officials said the U.S. faced “country-killing and unsustainable” crises that required immediate presidential action. Solicitor General John Sauer warned that striking down Trump’s authority would invite “ruthless trade retaliation” and lead to “ruinous economic and national security consequences.”
Conservatives Press for Limits on Presidential Reach
The justices’ questioning suggested deep concern about how far the administration’s argument could go. “The justification allows tariffs on any product, from any country, in any amount, for any duration,” Chief Justice John Roberts said.
Under the Constitution, Congress—not the president—has the power to tax. Courts have long set limits on how much of that power lawmakers can delegate to the executive branch. Justice Neil Gorsuch asked, “What would stop Congress from simply handing over all responsibility for regulating foreign commerce?” He admitted he was “struggling” to accept the administration’s reasoning.
Gorsuch pressed further, asking whether a president could “impose a 50 percent tariff on gas-powered cars and auto parts to respond to the extraordinary threat of climate change.”
The Debate Over Tariffs and Taxes
Lawyers representing the states and private challengers argued that IEEPA never mentions tariffs and that Congress never intended to give presidents unlimited power to rewrite trade policy. Neil Katyal, speaking for private businesses, said the law allowed embargoes or quotas—but not revenue-raising tariffs.
The justices focused heavily on the law’s wording and history. Presidents have frequently used IEEPA to impose sanctions, but Trump was the first to use it for tariffs. Sauer insisted tariffs were a “regulatory tool, not a tax.” He said revenue was “only incidental,” even though Trump often boasted about billions collected through tariffs.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor rejected that claim. “You say tariffs aren’t taxes, but that’s exactly what they are,” she said. Justice Brett Kavanaugh added that it seemed unreasonable to let a president block trade entirely but not impose a small tariff.
Billions at Stake and Small Businesses Struggling
The outcome could impact about $90 billion in import taxes already paid—nearly half of all U.S. tariff revenue through September, according to Wells Fargo analysts. Trump officials warned that figure could grow to $1 trillion if the court delays its decision until June.
The hearing lasted nearly three hours, much longer than scheduled, and drew a packed courtroom. If the justices side with Trump, the decision would overturn three lower-court rulings that found the administration exceeded its authority.
Among those watching was Sarah Wells, founder of Sarah Wells Bags, who joined other small business owners on the court’s steps. Her company, which designs and imports bags for breast pumps, paid around $20,000 in unexpected tariffs this year. She stopped importing, shifted suppliers, and laid off workers.
After the hearing, Wells said she felt hopeful. “They seemed to understand the overreach,” she said. “It felt like the justices recognized that this power has to be reined in.”
