The Supreme Court wrestled with whether a president can use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to slap tariffs on nearly every trading partner, and the justices dug into the statute’s language, history and practical consequences. Solicitor General John Sauer defended the move as a legitimate use of presidential authority to “regulate … nullify [and] void … importation,” while several justices, including Amy Coney Barrett and Sonia Sotomayor, pushed back hard. The arguments highlighted deep disagreements about separation of powers, the meaning of verbs in the law and the stakes for trade and national security. The hearing tracked as one of the most watched cases of the term, with sharp questions on both sides.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett pressed the government on whether ordinary statutory phrasing can be stretched into tariff power, asking pointedly, “Can you point to any other place in the code or any other time in history where that phrase together, ‘regulate importation,’ has been used to confer tariff-imposing authority?” Her line of questioning made clear she expected a concrete textual or historical hook. The exchange set the tone for a session that kept circling back to the statute’s exact verbs and their ordinary meanings.
Solicitor General John Sauer argued the law in question permits the president to “regulate … nullify [and] void … importation,” and he framed tariffs as one method of exercising that regulatory authority. Sauer maintained that even though the statute never uses the word “tariff,” its text reaches the kinds of import controls the administration implemented. Barrett repeatedly returned to the absence of the term “tariff” and pressed for direct examples tying the phrasing to tariff power.
Sauer pointed to an older trade statute as a precursor and tried to ground his case in historical practice, but Barrett sounded unconvinced when direct examples did not materialize. The justices wanted to know if this was a novel presidential power or a recognized tool with precedent. That uncertainty left the bench probing how far emergency authority should extend in economic policy.
“It’s a congressional power, not a presidential power to tax,” Sotomayor said. “And you want to say tariffs are not taxes. But that’s exactly what they are. They’re generating money from American citizens, revenue.” The liberal justice emphasized the taxing element and argued that Congress normally pairs regulate with tax when it intends to reach revenue-raising measures. Her point framed the debate as one about who gets to decide revenue-raising policy.
“Are you telling us that with respect to its use of ‘regulate’ in other statutes, the taxing reference is superfluous? They didn’t need to do that?” Sotomayor asked. That line highlighted Congress’s drafting habits and the possibility that silence on tariffs was deliberate. It also put the burden on the government to explain why ordinary drafting conventions should be set aside.
SUPREME COURT PREPARES TO CONFRONT MONUMENTAL CASE OVER TRUMP EXECUTIVE POWER AND TARIFF AUTHORITY The phrase under review has become the hinge for a broader fight over executive reach in trade. Justices kept returning to statutory context and whether policy goals can reshape plain language.
Both Barrett and Sotomayor also drilled down on other verbs in the statute, underscoring the absence of tariff powers. Barrett observed, “To me, things like ‘nullify’ and ‘void’ have definite meanings. I agree with you that ‘regulate’ is a broader term, but those words, I think, are powerful,” Barrett said. Sotomayor added bluntly, “The verbs that accompany ‘regulate’ have nothing to do with raising revenues in the form of taxes.”
The case quickly became one of the most closely watched of the term, raising questions about executive action and the limits of emergency authority. President Trump framed the matter in stark terms on social media, writing, “Our Stock Market is consistently hitting Record Highs, and our Country has never been more respected than it is right now,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “A big part of this is the Economic Security created by Tariffs, and the Deals that we have negotiated because of them.”
Sauer told the justices that Trump views the trade deficit and opioid epidemic as “country killing and not sustainable” and that he has chosen to address them by using the IEEPA to impose tariffs. He pointed to the administration’s trade deals and argued tariffs were a deliberate lever in negotiations with competitors like China. That defense framed tariffs as a tool of economic and national security rather than mere revenue-raising.
“Unwinding those agreements, [Trump] warns, would expose us to ruthless trade retaliation by far more aggressive countries and drive America from strength to failure with ruinous economic and national security consequences,” Sauer said. The government urged the court to consider the practical fallout of limiting presidential flexibility in trade emergencies. Those warnings pushed the debate into territory where law and policy collide.
Sauer further argued the emergency law gives the president the power to regulate importation and that “the power to tariff is a core application of that,” even if not explicitly stated in the law. That argument relied on a broad reading of regulatory authority to include familiar economic levers. Opponents countered that translating regulation into taxation or revenue creation steps into Congress’s lane.
In addition to the liberal justices and Barrett, other Republican-appointed justices conveyed skepticism, including Chief Justice John Roberts, who questioned how far presidential emergency powers go under the law. “The exercise of the power is to impose tariffs, and the statute doesn’t use the word tariffs,” Roberts said. The exchange underscored the court’s task: decide whether statutory silence bars the kind of sweeping tariff program at issue.
