President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariff program came under intense scrutiny at the Supreme Court on Wednesday, in a hearing that could redefine the balance of power between the White House and Congress. Several conservative justices voiced skepticism about the administration’s claim that the tariffs were essential to rebuild American manufacturing and correct trade imbalances.
A coalition of small businesses and several states argued that Trump exceeded his constitutional authority by imposing what they call an illegal tax. Though the court’s conservative majority often deliberates for months, observers expect a faster decision given the case’s economic and political weight.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, appointed by Trump, pressed the administration’s legal team to justify the broad scope of the tariffs. “Is it your contention that every country posed a threat to our defense and industrial base? Spain? France?” she asked pointedly. “I can see it with some, but why so many?”
Billions of dollars in tariff payments are at stake. Should the administration lose, the government might have to refund vast sums already collected—an outcome Barrett warned could become “a complete mess.”
The White House sent Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer to attend the hearing. Officials insisted they were ready for any outcome. “The White House is always preparing for Plan B,” said press secretary Karoline Leavitt before arguments began.
Later that day, Trump told Fox News that the hearing went well. He warned that a defeat would be “devastating for the country” and described the dispute as “one of the most important cases in American history.”
A 1977 Law at the Heart of the Case
The legal battle centers on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law that allows presidents to regulate trade during national emergencies. Trump first used it in February to impose tariffs on China, Mexico, and Canada, claiming that drug trafficking from those nations created an emergency.
Two months later, he expanded the policy, ordering tariffs ranging from 10% to 50% on imports from nearly every country. He argued that the nation’s trade deficit posed an “extraordinary and unusual threat.” Those measures took effect gradually as Washington pushed trading partners to renegotiate agreements.
The administration argued that regulating trade includes the right to impose tariffs. Solicitor General John Sauer warned that overturning Trump’s powers would expose the U.S. to “ruthless trade retaliation” and “ruinous economic and security consequences.” He described the crises as “unsustainable and country-killing,” saying emergency action was justified.
Justices Question the Limits of Presidential Power
Several justices signaled unease about the breadth of power claimed by the administration. “The justification allows tariffs on any product, from any country, at any rate, for any duration,” said Chief Justice John Roberts.
Under the Constitution, Congress—not the president—controls taxation. The court has long emphasized limits on how much of that authority lawmakers can delegate. Justice Neil Gorsuch asked, “What would stop Congress from giving away all responsibility for regulating foreign commerce?” He admitted he was “struggling” to accept the government’s argument.
Gorsuch raised a striking example. “Could the president impose a 50 percent tariff on gas-powered cars to combat the extraordinary threat of climate change?” he asked.
Debating Whether Tariffs Are Taxes
Lawyers for the states and small businesses insisted that IEEPA never mentions tariffs and that Congress never meant to grant presidents unlimited power over trade. Neil Katyal, representing private companies, argued that the law allowed embargoes or quotas, but not tariffs that generate revenue.
The justices examined the text and history of the law closely. While presidents have often used IEEPA to impose sanctions, Trump was the first to apply it to tariffs. Sauer maintained that tariffs are “regulatory tools, not taxes.” He said any revenue collected was “incidental,” despite Trump’s public claims that tariffs brought in billions.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor rejected that distinction outright. “You say tariffs aren’t taxes, but that’s exactly what they are,” she said. Justice Brett Kavanaugh added that it made little sense to give the president power to block trade entirely but not to impose even a modest tariff.
Economic Stakes and Business Fallout
Analysts estimate the case could affect $90 billion in import taxes already collected—almost half of this year’s U.S. tariff revenue through September. Administration officials warned that if the decision is delayed until June, the amount could grow to $1 trillion.
The hearing lasted nearly three hours—far longer than scheduled—and drew a full courtroom. If the justices side with Trump, they will overturn three lower-court rulings that found his actions exceeded presidential authority.
Outside the court, small business owners listened closely to the arguments. 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 tariffs this year, then halted imports, shifted suppliers, and laid off workers.
Afterward, Wells said she felt hopeful. “They seemed to recognize the overreach,” she said. “It felt like the justices understood that this power needs limits.”
