The U.S. Supreme Court heard nearly three hours of oral arguments examining whether the president has constitutional authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) — a case that could reshape the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches over U.S. trade policy.
The justices pressed both sides with sharp questions on statutory interpretation, historical precedent, and constitutional limits. Several, including Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, voiced skepticism that the IEEPA grants tariff authority, noting that while statutes such as Section 232 explicitly reference tariffs, the IEEPA does not.
Barrett questioned whether any prior use of “regulate importation” in U.S. law had been interpreted as granting tariff power. Jackson added that the IEEPA’s legislative record focuses on sanctions and embargoes — not duties — suggesting Congress never intended for it to authorize revenue-raising measures.
Central Question: Delegation of Congressional Power
At the heart of the case lies a constitutional issue: whether Congress improperly delegated its Article I powers over taxation and commerce to the president. Justice Neil Gorsuch warned that once such powers are handed to the executive, they are “practically impossible” for Congress to reclaim, given the requirement for veto-proof majorities to terminate emergencies.
Gorsuch described the situation as “a one-way ratchet toward the continual accretion of power in the executive branch,” raising broader questions about the major questions doctrine and limits on presidential authority under emergency statutes.
Key Arguments from Both Sides
The government, represented by Solicitor General D. John Sauer, argued that IEEPA tariffs are “regulatory,” not “revenue-raising,” and fall under the president’s authority to manage foreign threats. He drew parallels to Section 232 tariffs and prior actions taken under the Trading With the Enemy Act, which predated the IEEPA.
Counsel for the importers, Neal Katyal, countered that tariffs inherently raise revenue and are distinct from embargoes or licenses authorized under IEEPA. “There’s a category shift,” Katyal argued, emphasizing that the Constitution gives tariff power exclusively to Congress.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor echoed that point, stating, “The power to tariff is a congressional power, not a presidential one.” She rejected the government’s distinction between tariffs and taxes, calling tariffs “exactly what they are — a form of taxation.”
Economic and Legal Implications
The outcome could significantly affect how future administrations impose global tariffs during declared national emergencies. A ruling that limits IEEPA’s scope would constrain the president’s ability to unilaterally implement trade measures in response to foreign policy concerns, including sanctions or supply chain crises.
Barrett questioned the practical implications of striking down existing tariffs, asking whether refunding duties already collected would “be a complete mess.” Katyal conceded the complexity but said Congress could design a remedy or the Court could limit relief to future actions.
The justices also discussed related authorities — including Section 338, which historically allowed up to 50% retaliatory tariffs — though challengers argued that newer statutes like Section 301 and Section 232 now supersede that law.
Next Steps
The Court is reviewing two consolidated cases — Trump v. V.O.S. Selections and Learning Resources v. Trump — challenging the legality of worldwide tariffs imposed under IEEPA. Observers expect a decision earlier than the Court’s traditional June timeline, given the case’s implications for ongoing trade and customs enforcement.
Commerce Secretary, Treasury officials, and the U.S. Trade Representative were present during oral arguments, underscoring the decision’s high stakes for both economic and foreign policy.
