WASHINGTON (States Newsroom) — The U.S. Supreme Court during lengthy arguments Wednesday weighed whether President Donald Trump violated the Constitution when he became the first U.S. president to impose sweeping global tariffs under an economic emergency powers statute usually reserved to combat rare and unusual threats.
Justices in both the conservative 6-3 majority and liberal minority questioned the sweeping presidential power the administration is claiming under IEEPA, including Chief Justice John Roberts. Questions about how Trump officials interpret the statute and view its limits, or lack thereof, revealed their skepticism.
Members of the president’s Cabinet, members of Congress and even comedian John Mulaney packed into the high court for the first major case of Trump’s second term to be fully argued before the justices.
Tariffs are the centerpiece of Trump’s foreign policy, and he credits them in his recent negotiations to reach several unfinalized trade framework agreements with the European Union, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam and China, among other nations.
For nearly three hours the justices poked and prodded at the language of the International Economic Emergency Powers Act, or IEEPA, a 1970s-era sanctions law that Trump has invoked since January in a series of emergency declarations and proclamations triggering import taxes on goods from nearly every country.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent sat shoulder-to-shoulder with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and U.S. Trade Representative Jamison Greer.
Not far down the crowded rows were U.S. House Ways and Means Chairman Jason Smith, R-Mo., Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Democratic Sens. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Ed Markey of Massachusetts.
Mulaney sat a few rows from the back, and was reportedly there to support former Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal, who argued Wednesday on behalf of several private small businesses who sued Trump over the tariffs. Katyal, who served under President Barack Obama and hosts the “COURTSIDE” podcast, has collaborated with Mulaney on his show.
Small business owners ‘footing the bill’
The case centered on whether the president has unilateral authority to impose tariffs under IEEPA.
Trump became the first president to ever invoke import taxes under the 1977 emergency powers law, which has traditionally used sanctions to control economic transactions of hostile groups and individuals. For example, IEEPA was first invoked during the 1979 Iran hostage crisis and later used to freeze assets of terrorist groups after 9/11. In all, presidents have declared 77 national emergencies under the statute.
Small business owners who challenged Trump’s usage of the law argued the president doesn’t have the authority to tax them, and that the policy is upending their livelihoods.
Since Trump declared emergencies around fentanyl smuggling and imbalanced trade relationships, U.S. businesses have been paying anywhere from 10% to upwards of 50% on imports, depending on country of origin.
“It’s American businesses like mine and American consumers that are footing the bill for the billions of dollars collected,” Victor Schwartz, founder and president of the family-owned wine and spirits importer VOS Selections and lead plaintiff, said outside the courthouse following arguments.
Small businesses and Democratic state attorneys general led the charge in the two separate cases, consolidated before the Supreme Court. They allege Trump usurped taxing power, which belongs to Congress as outlined in Article I of the Constitution.
Schwartz’s fellow plaintiffs included a Utah-based plastics producer, a Virginia-based children’s electricity learning kit maker, a Pennsylvania-based fishing gear company and a Vermont-based women’s cycling apparel company.
Among the state officials who also joined the suit were state attorneys general from Arizona, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico and Oregon.
Two Illinois-based toy makers that primarily manufacture products in Asia filed a separate challenge.
Solicitor general argues ‘power to tariff’
The Trump administration argues tariffs are a necessary tool to achieve economic and national security goals. Officials claim the president’s power to impose duties under IEEPA is spelled out in the statute’s language authorizing the president to “regulate” importation and exportation during times of an “unusual and extraordinary threat.”
“One of the most natural applications of that is the power to tariff,” U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer — the former Missouri solicitor general — said in response to questioning by Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
“So when Congress confers the power to regulate imports, it is, naturally, conferring the power to tariff,” Sauer continued.
Chief Justice Roberts asked Sauer to clarify the “major power” he claimed was granted in the statute.
“The exercise of the power is to impose tariffs, right? And the statute doesn’t use the word tariffs?” Roberts said.
“But it uses the words ‘regulate importations,’ and historically, a core, central application of that, a big piece of that, has always been to tariff,” Sauer answered, speaking at a quick and excited pace.
Many emergencies
Justice Elena Kagan asked Sauer why a president would ever use any of the other specific and constraint-bound tariff powers delegated by Congress if IEEPA “gives the president the opportunity to blow past those limits.”
“Because if you look at Title 19 (of the U.S. Code), which is loaded with tariffs and duties of various kinds, all of them have real constraints on them. They are, you know, you can’t go over X percent, or it can’t last more than one year. And of course, the way you interpret this statute, it has none of those constraints,” Kagan said.
Sauer responded that IEEPA “has its own constraints.”
“The president has to make a formal declaration of a national emergency, which subjects him to particularly intensive oversight by Congress, repeated natural lapsing, repeated review reports and so forth,” he said.
Kagan swiftly interjected: “I mean, you yourself think that the declaration of emergency is unreviewable, and even if it’s not unreviewable, it is, of course, the kind of determination that this Court would grant considerable deference to the president on, so that doesn’t seem like much of a constraint.”
“And in fact, you know, we’ve had cases recently which deal with the president’s emergency powers, and it turns out we’re in emergencies, about everything all the time, about like half the world,” Kagan said, to laughter in the courtroom.
Trump has petitioned the high court numerous times in 2025, putting cases regarding mass layoffs and immigration on the justices’ unofficial shadow docket, which bypasses a full argument process.
Trump comfort with tariffs
Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked why of the nearly 70 emergencies declared under IEEPA in past decades, none of them have invoked tariffs as a solution.
“Why do you think Presidents, Clinton, Bush, Obama, have not used IEEPA to impose tariffs? Because there have been trade disputes, certainly President Bush, steel imports and the like. Why do you think IEEPA has not been used?” Kavanaugh asked.
Sauer answered: “When you go through them one at a time, which we had our team do, it’s really hard to find one when you look at that emergency, you say, ‘Oh, tariffs is the natural tool you would use to address that emergency.’”
There are also “political reasons,” Sauer added. “I think that it’s no question that President Trump is by far the most comfortable with the tariffs as a tool, both economic and foreign policy, than many of others.”
Fentanyl smuggling targeted
Trump began imposing tariffs under IEEPA through a series of executive orders and proclamations in February and March on products from China, Canada and Mexico, declaring these countries responsible for illegal fentanyl smuggling into the United States.
The president escalated the emergency tariffs over the following months on goods from around the globe, declaring trade imbalances a national emergency. In addition to a baseline 10% global tariff, Trump specifically targeted countries that export more goods to the U.S. than they import from U.S. suppliers.
As recently as late August, Trump imposed an extra 25% tariff on goods imported from India, bringing the total tariffs on Indian products to 50%, because of the country’s usage of Russian oil.
In early August, Trump slapped a 40% tax on all Brazilian goods after he disagreed with the country’s prosecution of its former right-wing President Jair Bolsonaro for plotting a coup to remain in power in 2022.
Speaking to reporters following the arguments, Bessent said he thought the case “went very well.”
“I think the solicitor general has made a very powerful case,” he said.
When asked whether the administration was crafting plans for what to do if the Supreme Court invalidates Trump’s emergency tariffs, he replied, “We’re not going to discuss that now.”
