A majority of U.S. Supreme Court justices appeared skeptical Wednesday about President Donald Trump’s ability to unilaterally impose far-reaching tariffs on Canada and other countries, putting the future of his economic agenda into question.
Three conservative justices raised questions about whether a federal national emergency law gives Trump near-limitless power to set and change duties on imports without approval from Congress, which has constitutional authority over revenue-generating policies like tariffs.
The court’s three liberal justices also appeared dubious, setting the stage for a possible reversal or limitation of Trump’s tariff power.
“It was a hot bench — lots of questions,” Ashley Akers, a former U.S. Department of Justice senior trial counsel, told Global News in an interview Wednesday.
Experts have warned, however, that even if the high court strikes down Trump’s tariffs and use of the emergency law, that likely won’t bring an end to his efforts to raise prices on imported goods.
The case centred around two lawsuits that challenged Trump’s use of national emergency authorities to lay tariffs on countries around the world, including the so-called fentanyl tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China, as well as the “reciprocal” levies on dozens of other nations.
The plaintiffs, which included over a dozen states and hundreds of American small businesses reliant on now-costly imports, said the 1977 law Trump used, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEPPA), makes no mention of tariffs and was an unprecedented method of imposing them.
The Trump administration argued the law’s language allowing the president to regulate imports in response to a national emergency includes tariffs.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, though, appeared concerned that could shift too much power to the president on an issue that helped spark the American Revolution.
“Is the constitutional assignment of the taxing power to Congress, the power to reach into the pockets of the American people, just different?” he asked. “That had to be done locally, through our elected representatives.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Chief Justice John Roberts also raised questions about whether the emergency-power law allowed for tariffs on “any product, from any country, in any amount, for any length of time,” as Roberts put it.
“The basis for the claim seems to be a misfit,” he said.
Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said IEEPA was intended to limit presidential authority, not expand it.
“It’s pretty clear that Congress was trying to constrain the emergency powers of the president,” Jackson said.
Trump argued Tuesday in a social media post that the case’s outcome means “LIFE OR DEATH” for the U.S. economy.
He has also said the tariffs are a “vital” negotiating tool with other countries to reach trade deals and force policy changes on matters of national security — including, in Canada’s case, fentanyl trafficking.
Roberts suggested that the court could apply its “major questions” doctrine, which requires executive branch actions of vast economic and political significance to be clearly authorized by Congress.
The Supreme Court applied the major questions doctrine multiple times during the Biden administration, including striking down efforts to forgive US$400 billion in student loans and mandate COVID-19 vaccinations for government workers under a different law dealing with national emergencies.
The plaintiffs said Trump’s tariffs should get the same treatment, since they’ll have a much greater economic effect, an argument Akers said was “strong” given that precedent.
“This case is a situation where the government is asking for the broadest executive power, so that certainly could come into play in the justices’ decision here,” Akers said.
The government, on the other hand, argued the tariffs are different because they’re a major part of his approach to foreign affairs, an area where the courts should not be second-guessing the president.
Justices like Brett Kavanaugh seemed receptive to that argument, and Roberts also seemed hesitant to restrict the president’s foreign affairs power.
But Gorsuch also brought up a hypothetical international conflict while questioning whether allowing Trump these tariff powers would further undermine the U.S. Constitution’s separation of powers between the federal executive and legislative branches.
“What would prohibit Congress from just abdicating all responsibility to regulate foreign commerce — or for that matter, declare war — to the president?” Gorsuch asked.
Justices noted during the hearing that they were hearing the case on an “expedited” timeline given the extraordinary nature of the issue.
A collection of small businesses that joined the case have said the uncertainty is driving them to the brink of bankruptcy, adding to the urgency.
Lawyers involved with the case have predicted a decision could come before the end of the year.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who attended the hearing at Trump’s request, told Fox Business he left feeling “very, very optimistic” about the government’s chances, adding the plaintiffs had “almost embarrassed themselves.”
Akers, however, felt the challenging lawyers were able to capitalize on how the government “really wants to have it both ways” by arguing the emergency tariffs are both a regulatory action and a revenue-generator, which she argued didn’t hold up to scrutiny from the justices.
She and other experts agreed, however, that if the court rules against the government, Trump will find other ways to impose tariffs on countries and industries.
Those include Section 301 of the U.S. Trade Act to address “unfair trade practices” — leveled against China in Trump’s first term — and the Section 232 tariffs Trump has imposed on foreign steel, aluminum, autos, lumber and more, which the case does not address.
“I think folks might be putting a little bit too much stock in the Supreme Court decision — in particular, the folks who don’t like tariffs,” said Patrick Childress, a former attorney for the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative who dealt in part with matters involving the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement on free trade.
“While there very well could be this brief period while the tariff burden is low, I think the tariffs are going to go up to the same or very similar rates pretty quickly.”
The key difference will be that both Section 301 and 232 tariffs will require studies and consultation before they can be enforced.
The aftermath of a ruling against Trump also could be complicated, if the government must issue refunds. So far, the U.S. Treasury has collected almost US$90 billion from the import taxes the president has imposed under the emergency powers law.
Chi Carmody, a professor at Western University who studies international trade law, previously told Global News that process could see further court proceedings if the administration slow-walks the payouts.
“It’s going to take a very long time and there’s going to be some uncertainty” going forward, he said.
—With files from Global’s Reggie Cecchini, the Associated Press and Reuters
© 2025 Global News, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.
Ad Choices