The Supreme Court heard arguments over whether the president can use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose sweeping 10 percent tariffs, and the justices pressed hard on separation-of-powers concerns and the boundaries of executive power. The outcome will decide whether a president can unilaterally deploy broad trade measures under an emergency finding or whether Congress must state tariff authority plainly. This fight tests how hard the Court will rein in executive discretion on a major economic policy.
The oral argument painted a clear picture: conservative justices, including those appointed by President Trump, were not eager to hand the executive branch unchecked authority. That skepticism reflects the stakes—if the administration loses, a signature economic tool could be struck down. Republicans worry that limiting presidential tools undermines the ability to respond quickly to trade imbalances and global threats.
The Administration relied on IEEPA, a statute Congress wrote to let presidents act in declared national emergencies involving foreign threats, to justify the so-called “Liberation Day” tariffs. Trump called the trade deficit a national emergency and used IEEPA to order a 10 percent tariff on most imports earlier this year. Opponents counter that IEEPA never mentions “tariffs” or “taxes,” and that absence matters.
Much of the Court’s attention zeroed in on a single statutory phrase: “regulate importation.” Justices pressed whether that language can fairly be read to supply broad tariff-imposing powers to the White House. The more conservative members expressed unease about letting a general grant become a shortcut around Article I’s revenue and taxation powers.
Justice Barrett put a sharp, concrete question to the Solicitor General: “Can you point to any other place in the code or any other time in history where that phrase — together with ‘regulate importation’ — has been used to confer tariff-imposing authority?” Her line of questioning pushed the government to show a textual or historical precedent rather than asking the Court to infer a new presidential power. That tension cuts to the heart of separation-of-powers debate on the bench.
Justice Gorsuch also framed his concerns in constitutional terms, asking about the government’s “theory of the Constitution” and invoking the “major questions doctrine,” which flags major economic decisions for clear congressional authorization. He asked pointedly, “What would prohibit Congress from abdicating all responsibility to regulate foreign commerce or declare war to the president?” Those words make clear the Court is wrestling with whether accepting the Administration’s view would rewrite the balance of powers.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer insisted a “regulatory tariff” is not a tax and that any revenue-raising effect was “only incidental,” even as that Trump’s tariff revenues exceeded $100 billion this year. He argued the president’s use of IEEPA fits with past emergency economic tools like embargoes and sanctions. But the absence of explicit tariff language in IEEPA is the hard sell for the government.
Challengers — including businesses and Democratic-led states — argued Congress must speak plainly if it wants to hand presidents the power to impose broad tariffs. They pointed to statutes like Section 232 and Section 301 where Congress expressly authorized tariff actions tied to national security or trade retaliation. The challengers noted IEEPA’s historical use for embargoes, asset freezes and licensing, not economy-wide tariffs, and cited Algonquin SNG v. FEA (1976) as the last time the Court approved presidential tariff authority when Congress had been explicit.
Liberal justices signaled they are unlikely to read IEEPA as a blank check without a clear statement from Congress. After Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024), lower courts and the justices are less willing to infer sweeping agency or executive authority from vague text. Under the “major questions” doctrine, actions that reshape markets demand a plain, specific grant from lawmakers, not judicial invention.
Observers said the government faces an uphill climb. Jonathan Turley wrote that the justices “were skeptical and uncomfortable with the claim of authority, and the odds still favored the challengers.” He also warned, “However, there is a real chance of a fractured decision that could still produce an effective win for the administration,” underscoring the unpredictable path from argument to opinion.
Jack Goldsmith offered a measured read: “I think that it is fair to say that the justices the government needs to win the case — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett — asked the government very hard questions that did express skepticism about important elements of its case,” he said, but added, “But they also asked the other side very hard questions. I do not think any of these three tipped off their hands definitively. I did not find anything terribly surprising in the questions.”
Other legal voices echoed concerns about expanding executive power. “Most justices appeared attentive to the risks of deferring to a president’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute and the executive branch ‘discovering’ new powers in old statutes,” one observer remarked. The case, Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (consolidated with Trump v. V.O.S. Selections), will decide whether presidents can pivot old emergency statutes into sweeping trade tools, with a ruling expected by late June.
https://x.com/WhiteHouse/status/1945218299697975508
Graduate Student, wife, engaged political and legal writer.