Trump's tariffs are crashing into the Supreme Court. Judges skeptical about the president's powers
During Wednesday's hearing, most Supreme Court justices expressed skepticism about President Donald Trump's authority to impose most tariffs on goods from almost all countries in the world. A decision on this matter will be made at a later date.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments from the parties in a landmark case regarding the president's right to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which allows for the introduction of sanctions and other economic measures in response to extraordinary and exceptional threats. The case concerns tariffs imposed by Trump on products from almost all countries in the world. The president argued that such decisions would pose an “exceptional threat” in the form of a permanent trade deficit.
Two lower courts found Trump's tariffs illegal, and questions and comments by a majority of Supreme Court justices suggested they held a similar view.
Neal Katyal, a lawyer representing business-importers who filed a complaint against Trump's tariffs, argued that tariffs are a tax, and Congress, which has the authority to introduce taxes, could not and did not give the president the power to impose tariffs around the world.
– It comes down to common sense. “It is simply incredible that, by passing IEEPA, Congress gave the president the power to overhaul the entire tariff system and the U.S. economy, allowing him to set and change tariffs on any product from any country, at any time,” Katyal said. – This is a one-way mechanism. We will never regain this power if the government wins this case, he warned.
A representative of the Trump administration, the president's former personal lawyer John Sauer, claimed that Trump had the right to impose tariffs because it was within his foreign policy authority and that the tariffs imposed were not actually a tax. Sauer argued that they were of a “regulatory” nature and their purpose was not to provide budget revenues. He thus argued that they were not about imposing a tax, which is the constitutional right of Congress. In his opinion, customs duties would work best if they did not generate revenues at all, but changed the balance of foreign trade (limited imports).
The justices – including the court's chief justice, conservative John Roberts – responded that the president had other tools for this purpose, such as embargoes and quotas that would not impose taxes on Americans. Another conservative justice, Neil Gorsuch, pointed out the danger of Congress granting its own powers to the president (in this case, imposing tariffs) and that the Parliament – in practice – cannot take them back because of the president's veto power.
Much of the discussion focused on semantic issues regarding IEEPA, which Trump invoked when imposing his tariffs. In particular, the issue was whether the provision in the act granting the president the right to “regulate (…) imports” also includes the right to impose customs duties. Many justices – all three liberal justices, as well as two conservatives, Chief Justice John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett – seemed skeptical of the arguments of the administration, represented by lawyer John Sauer.
Several judges admitted when questioning the plaintiffs' representatives that they had solid arguments. But Judge Barrett stressed that if the tariffs were invalidated by the court, the result would be a “mess” of recouping the money the state collected from the tariffs. Katyal admitted that this was true, but it should not be an obstacle to leaving them. He and the justices also suggested that Trump could impose tariffs using powers other than IEEPA, although that process would be more complicated, longer and limited.
Wednesday's over two-hour hearing in the Supreme Court, as expected, did not bring a resolution. Theoretically, the Court can issue a ruling at any time. Judgments are usually handed down in June, but the current case is being pursued at an accelerated pace. According to the influential Supreme Court blog, SCOTUS Blog, the decision will likely come before Christmas.
US President Donald Trump has repeatedly argued that the case before the court regarding customs duties is one of the most important in history, and its loss will mean the economic ruin of the country. Although he ultimately waived his personal appearance in court, he was represented there by Finance Minister Scott Bessent.
From Washington Oskar Górzyński (PAP)
osk/kbm/
