Supreme Court Justices Question Legality of Trump's Tariffs in Landmark Hearing

Thu Nov 06 2025 17:25:06 GMT+0200 (Eastern European Standard Time)

In a pivotal Supreme Court hearing, conservative justices expressed skepticism about the legality of President Trump's tariffs, highlighting potential overreach of presidential power and implications for small businesses and the economy.

During a high-stakes Supreme Court session, justices, including several conservatives, challenged the justification for President Trump's extensive tariffs. Legal arguments hinge on the president's authority to impose such duties under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. As the case unfolds, it could have far-reaching consequences not only for the Trump administration but also for global trade dynamics and American businesses impacted by tariff policies.

President Donald Trump's use of sweeping tariffs faced sharp questioning at the Supreme Court on Wednesday, in a case with major implications for the president's agenda and the global economy.

A majority of justices, including several conservatives, expressed doubts about the White House's justification of the import duties, which the president has said are necessary to restore America's manufacturing base and fix its trade imbalance.

The measures are being challenged by a number of small businesses and a group of states, which contend that the president has overstepped his authority in imposing the levies, which are in effect a tax.

America's top court - which has a 6-3 conservative majority - usually takes months to reach big decisions, but many expect it to move faster in this case, which is also seen as the first major test of the Trump administration's push to expand presidential power.

And so is it your contention that every country needed to be tariffed because of threats to the defense and industrial base? I mean, Spain? France? asked Amy Coney Barrett, who was appointed to the court by Trump.

Billions of dollars in tariff payments are at stake. If the Trump administration loses, the government could have to refund some of the billions of dollars it has collected, a process that Barrett noted could become a complete mess.

The White House has said that they will turn to other tariff authorities if the court does not rule in its favour. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt commented that the White House is always preparing for a contingency plan.

Appearing on Fox News after the hearing, Trump stated he believed the day proceeded well and warned that a defeat in the court could be devastating for the country.

The case revolves around the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which grants the president authority to regulate trade in emergencies. Trump invoked this authority first for goods from China, Canada, and Mexico, asserting drug trafficking constituted an emergency, and later escalated to cover virtually all imports.

Solicitor General John Sauer defended the administration's actions, claiming the tariffs were a necessary response to threats that warranted urgent governmental action, while critics argued that the law does not authorize such broad taxing powers.

The justices are grappling with the implications of possibly endorsing such expansive presidential power to essentially impose taxes under the guise of tariffs, which traditionally is Congress's prerogative. The outcome of this hearing will significantly influence the perpetual tug-of-war between presidential authority and legislative powers regarding trade and economic policy.