• Conservative and liberal justices question Trump administration’s legal justification for imposing sweeping global tariffs without congressional approval.
• Chief Justice Roberts emphasizes taxing power belongs to Congress, not president’s foreign affairs authority in tariff case.
• Lower courts previously ruled Trump lacked authority under emergency powers law to impose reciprocal and fentanyl tariffs.

WASHINGTON, D.C. (TDR) — Supreme Court justices on Wednesday expressed skepticism about the legality of aggressive tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump against most of the world’s nations.

Conservative and liberal justices sharply questioned Solicitor General D. John Sauer on the Trump administration’s method for enacting the tariffs, which critics say infringes on the power of Congress to tax. Lower federal courts ruled that Trump lacked the legal authority he cited under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose the so-called reciprocal tariffs on imports from many U.S. trading partners, and fentanyl tariffs on products from Canada, China and Mexico.

Roberts challenges core constitutional premise

Chief Justice John Roberts led the skeptical questioning, emphasizing Congress’ “core power” of regulating taxes and rejecting the government’s claim that the tariffs aren’t taxes. “The vehicle is imposition of taxes on Americans, and that has always been the core power of Congress,” Roberts said during more than 2½ hours of oral arguments.

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10

“So to have the president’s foreign affairs power trump that basic power for Congress seems to me to kind of at least neutralize between the two powers, the executive power and the legislative power,” the chief justice added. Roberts also noted that Trump is claiming “a power to impose tariffs on any product, from any country, for any amount, for any length of time.”

The chief justice suggested the court’s “major questions doctrine” might apply directly to the case. That doctrine requires Congress to explicitly authorize programs with “vast economic and political significance.”

Conservative justices probe statutory language

Justice Amy Coney Barrett pressed Sauer on whether the court had ever viewed the term “regulate” to include sweeping tariffs. “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,” Barrett asked during one of the more important moments in the argument.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh emerged as potentially pivotal, repeatedly returning to the Trump administration’s argument about President Richard Nixon’s 1971 tariffs. However, Kavanaugh also seemed skeptical of other aspects of the government’s position.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE THE DUPREE REPORT

Justice Neil Gorsuch questioned whether it was unconstitutional for Congress to give the president sweeping powers over tariffs. He wondered if a president could use the law to impose tariffs on gas-powered cars under a climate change emergency. Sauer conceded it’s “very likely” a president could do that under his argument, though the current administration views climate change as a “hoax.”

Liberal justices unite in opposition

Justice Elena Kagan told Sauer bluntly: “It has a lot of actions that can be taken under this statute. It just doesn’t have the one you want.” When Sauer argued that “everyone knows” the U.S. is in an emergency regarding trade deficits, Kagan quipped: “It turns out we’re in emergencies about everything all the time.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor challenged the administration’s claim that the major questions doctrine doesn’t apply to foreign affairs. “We have never applied it to foreign affairs, but this is a tariff. This is a tax,” she said. The court’s three liberal justices appeared united against the administration’s position.

Massive financial stakes for government

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who attended Wednesday’s hearing, previously said the government might have to refund $750 billion or more if the Supreme Court ruled the tariffs illegal. The tariffs, if allowed to stand, would result in $3 trillion in extra revenue for the United States by 2035, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

The tariffs start at a baseline of 10% on many nations and spike to as high as 50% on goods from India and Brazil. The federal government collected $151 billion from customs duties in the second half of fiscal year 2025, a nearly 300% increase over the same period in fiscal year 2024.

Neal Katyal, the lawyer representing small businesses challenging the administration’s tariffs, argued that the Founding Fathers had delegated the power to tax to Congress in the Constitution. He pointed out that Trump imposed a 39% tariff on imports from Switzerland even though the U.S. runs a trade surplus with that nation.

Decision timeline uncertain

The Supreme Court will not issue a decision in the case on Wednesday. It is not clear when the court will release its ruling, but the Trump administration has asked for the decision to be expedited. Based on the oral arguments, the case appears closer than many expected, with at least some conservative justices expressing concerns about the breadth of executive power claimed by the administration.

A ruling against Trump could eliminate a primary bargaining chip he has used in negotiations with other countries and deal a devastating blow to a cornerstone of his economic agenda. A decision upholding the tariffs would cement an expansive new exercise of presidential power.

Should the Supreme Court prioritize presidential flexibility in foreign affairs over Congress’s constitutional power to tax, or does allowing such broad tariff authority risk executive overreach?

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10