The Supreme Court of the United States convened on Wednesday to examine whether Donald Trump lawfully relied on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977 to impose vast import duties &mdash; a question raising issues of separation of powers, taxation authority and the bounds of the presidency.
At issue is whether the statute grants the President unilateral power to impose tariffs &mdash; essentially taxes on imports &mdash; without express congressional approval, and whether the administration&rsquo;s invocation of emergency powers can justify such duties. Treasury records show almost USD 90 billion has so far been collected from importers under the challenged tariffs.
During oral argument the justices, both conservatives and liberals, voiced deep scepticism of the administration&rsquo;s position that the Act permits broad tariff authority. Chief Justice John Roberts remarked that tariffs have &ldquo;always been the core power of Congress&rdquo;. The question arose whether this was a &ldquo;major action&rdquo; by the executive branch demanding a clear congressional authorisation under the so-called major-questions doctrine. At the same time, Justice Neil Gorsuch warned of the risks if Congress cedes regulation of foreign commerce to the executive, asking rhetorically what would stop Congress from delegating the power to declare war.
The administration&rsquo;s Solicitor General, D. John Sauer, defended the tariff regime on the ground that the President may act under national-emergency authority to regulate imports, and that IEEPA&rsquo;s reference to regulating &ldquo;importation&rdquo; encompasses tariffs. But justices pressed him on whether the statute&rsquo;s text mentions tariffs or taxes at all &mdash; it does not. Several questioned whether the statute, when used in this way, would permit the President to impose duties for indefinite duration, on any country, for any product &mdash; and still remain within the statute&rsquo;s limits.
Businesses and 12 states challenged the tariffs, contending they are unlawful exercises of executive power and injure consumers, increase prices on goods ranging from clothing, toys and automobiles to liquor, and ultimately raise costs of living. The case was expedited and a decision is expected shortly.
While the court hears this appeal, the administration has signalled that if IEEPA is struck down as a basis for the tariffs it may switch to other legal authorities to maintain them. Nonetheless, a ruling against the tariff regime would represent a significant restraint on presidential trade power and reaffirm Congress&rsquo;s role in taxation and external commerce.
&nbsp;

Justices hearing the tariff-authority case

Court reviews Trump’s tariff powers; $90bn taken from US importers

Court Questions Trump’s Tariff Authority

Court reviews Trump’s tariff powers; $90bn taken from US importers

November 6, 2025 | 04:46 IST