US Supreme Court justices raised doubts on Wednesday over the legality of President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs in a case with implications for the global economy that marks a major test of Trump’s powers.
Conservative and liberal justices alike sharply questioned the lawyer representing Trump’s administration about whether a 1977 law meant for use during national emergencies gave Trump the power he claimed to impose tariffs or whether the Republican president had intruded on the powers of Congress.
But some conservative justices also stressed the inherent authority of presidents in dealing with foreign countries, suggesting the court could be sharply divided in the outcome of the case.
The arguments came in appeals by the administration after lower courts ruled that Trump’s use of the law exceeded his authority.
Businesses affected by the tariffs and 12 U.S. states, most of them Democratic-led, challenged the tariffs.
Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts told U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer that the tariffs are “the imposition of taxes on Americans, and that has always been the core power of Congress.”
The US Constitution gives Congress the authority to impose taxes and tariffs.
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 authorised by Congress.
“The justification is being used for a power to impose tariffs on any product, from any country, in any amount, for any length of time,” Roberts said.
Trump invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, to impose the tariffs on nearly every U.S. trading partner.
The law lets a president regulate commerce in a national emergency. He became the first president to use IEEPA for this purpose.
Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned Sauer about his claim that IEEPA’s language granting presidents emergency power to regulate importation encompasses tariffs.
“Can you point to any other place in the code or any other time in history where that phrase together ‘regulate importation’ has been used to confer tariff-imposing authority?” Barrett asked Sauer.
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.
While the Supreme Court typically takes months to issue rulings after hearing arguments, the administration has asked it to act swiftly in this case.
IEEPA gives the president power to deal with “an unusual and extraordinary threat” amid a national emergency. It had historically been used for imposing sanctions on enemies or freezing their assets.
Sauer said Trump determined that US trade deficits have brought the nation to the brink of an economic and national security catastrophe, and that tariffs have helped Trump negotiate trade deals.
Unwinding those deals “would expose us to ruthless trade retaliation by far more aggressive countries,” Sauer said.
Emphasising the president’s powers in the realm of foreign affairs, Sauer told the justices that the “major questions” doctrine should not apply in this context.
Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted that President Richard Nixon imposed a worldwide tariff under IEEPA’s predecessor statute in the 1970s that contained similar language regarding the regulation of importation.
“That’s a good example for you,” Kavanaugh told Sauer.
The Supreme Court has long shown deference to the president on conducting foreign policy.
Roberts noted that Trump’s tariffs have given him leverage in making foreign trade agreements.
“Sure, the tariffs are a tax, and that’s a core power of Congress, but they are a foreign-facing tax, right? And foreign affairs is a core power of the executive,” Roberts told lawyer Neal Katyal, representing the challengers.
Questions posed by conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch suggested that he thinks Sauer’s claims about the breadth of the president’s inherent foreign affairs powers would threaten to undermine the Constitution’s separation of powers.
“What would prohibit Congress from just abdicating all responsibility to regulate foreign commerce, or for that matter, declare war, to the president?” Gorsuch asked.
#USSupremeCourt #DonaldTrump #Tariffs #TradePolicy #USPolitics #IEEPA #GlobalEconomy #SupremeCourt #TradeWar #Congress #ExecutivePower
