Supreme Court Justices Express Skepticism Over Trump Tariffs‘ Legal Basis
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court grilled lawyers Wednesday over the legality of tariffs imposed by the Trump management on steel and aluminum imports, signaling deep skepticism about the administration’s claim that a 1974 law grants the president broad authority to impose such tariffs for national security reasons.
The case centers on whether the tariffs, enacted under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), exceeded the president’s constitutional authority, traditionally held by Congress. Solicitor General Elizabeth Sauer defended the tariffs, arguing emergency situations justified the measures. However, justices from across the ideological spectrum voiced concerns.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned the past basis for the administration’s interpretation of IEEPA,asking,”Can you point to any other place in the code or any time in history where the phrase…’regulate importation’ [the words in the statute] has been used to confer tariff-imposing authority?”
justice Elena Kagan responded sharply to Sauer’s claim of ongoing emergencies justifying the tariffs,stating,”It turns out,we’re in emergencies…all the time,about,like,half the world.”
Justice Neil Gorsuch presented a particularly forceful challenge,suggesting the president’s position could grant unchecked power,even extending to the power to declare war – a power constitutionally reserved for Congress. He questioned, “You’re saying inherent authority in foreign affairs, all foreign affairs, to regulate commerce, duties, and tariffs and war. Its inherent authority all the way down, you say. Fine. congress decides tommorow, well, we’re tired of this legislating business. we’re just going to hand it all off to the president. What would stop Congress from doing that?”
Sauer maintained that Congress retains the power to amend or repeal IEEPA, but Gorsuch countered that a presidential veto would make such action practically impossible, stating, “As a practical matter…congress can’t get its power back once it is handed over to the president.”
Neal Katyal,representing the challengers to the tariffs,emphasized that no previous president had asserted such broad authority under IEEPA.He faced questioning, particularly from Justice Barrett, regarding the practicalities of reimbursing the billions of dollars already paid by U.S. businesses to comply with the tariffs. Barrett remarked after Katyal suggested reimbursement options, “So a mess.”
The court is expected to issue a decision sooner than usual, as both sides requested expedited consideration. The case has important implications for the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches regarding trade policy.
