• Chief Justice John Roberts directly challenges Trump administration’s argument that sweeping tariffs don’t constitute taxes on Americans.
• Roberts tells Solicitor General taxes have always been core congressional power, questioning president’s authority to bypass Constitution.
• Exchange highlights central constitutional conflict over whether emergency powers law allows president to impose duties without Congress.

WASHINGTON, D.C. (TDR) — Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts grilled Trump Solicitor General D. John Sauer on Wednesday over the administration’s claim that tariffs are not taxes.

Sauer is arguing against lower court rulings that shot down President Donald Trump’s use of emergency powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to levy sweeping tariffs on foreign countries, a power solely granted to Congress in the Constitution. Roberts questioned Sauer and noted Congress’s “core power” of regulating taxes, clearly rejecting his argument that Trump’s tariffs aren’t taxes.

Roberts challenges constitutional framework

“But I mean, and I think this is a question for the other side as well: it’s two-facing. Yes, of course, there are dealings with foreign powers, but the vehicle is imposition of taxes on Americans, and that has always been the core power of Congress,” Roberts said to Sauer during the contentious exchange.

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, it seems to me to at least neutralize between the two powers, the executive power and the legislative power,” the chief justice continued.

Sauer attempted to push back on the premise that Americans bear the cost of tariffs. “Let me say two things in response to that. First, the notion that the taxes are all borne by Americans and not by foreign producers whose goods are imported, empirically, there’s no basis for that in the record. It’s actually a mix,” he argued.

‘Who pays the tariffs?’

Roberts quickly interjected with a pointed question that cut to the heart of the administration’s argument: “But, who pays the tariffs? If a tariff is imposed on automobiles, who pays them?”

The exchange highlighted a fundamental tension at the center of the case. While Trump has repeatedly claimed that foreign countries pay tariffs, economists widely agree that American consumers and businesses ultimately bear the cost through higher prices on imported goods.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE THE DUPREE REPORT

Roberts’ questioning suggested skepticism about whether Congress, through IEEPA, intended to grant presidents such sweeping authority to impose what amount to taxes on American consumers. The 1977 law was designed to give presidents emergency powers to freeze assets and regulate transactions during national crises, not to reshape the entire U.S. trade policy.

Lower courts rejected Trump’s authority

Federal courts previously ruled that Trump exceeded his authority under both IEEPA and the Constitution when imposing reciprocal tariffs on more than 100 countries and separate fentanyl tariffs on Canada, China and Mexico. Those decisions found the president was effectively usurping Congress’s constitutional taxing power.

The tariffs start at a baseline of 10% on many nations and reach as high as 50% on goods from India and Brazil. The administration argues these levies are “regulatory” measures to address trade imbalances and the fentanyl crisis, not revenue-raising taxes.

However, the federal government collected $151 billion from customs duties in the second half of fiscal year 2025, representing a nearly 300% increase over the same period in fiscal year 2024. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates the tariffs could generate $3 trillion in revenue by 2035 if upheld.

Major questions doctrine looms

Roberts also suggested the court’s “major questions doctrine” might apply directly to the case. That doctrine, which the Supreme Court has used to strike down sweeping executive actions by presidents of both parties, requires Congress to explicitly authorize programs with vast economic and political significance.

The doctrine was used to invalidate President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness program and a COVID-19 eviction moratorium. Trump’s tariffs have far greater economic impact than either of those policies, potentially making them vulnerable under the same legal standard.

Stakes enormous for administration

If the Supreme Court rules against the administration, the government could owe hundreds of billions of dollars in refunds to businesses that have paid the tariffs. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent estimated in September that refunds could reach $750 billion or more.

The case also carries significant implications for presidential power more broadly. A ruling upholding Trump’s tariffs would establish precedent for future presidents to impose sweeping economic policies through emergency declarations, potentially reshaping the constitutional balance between executive and legislative branches.

The Supreme Court did not indicate when it would issue a ruling, though the Trump administration has requested an expedited decision given the massive financial stakes involved.

Does the president’s foreign affairs authority justify bypassing Congress’s constitutional taxing power, or must explicit congressional authorization be required for such economically significant policies?

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