The US Supreme Court is preparing to weigh one of President Trump’s boldest assertions of executive power: his decision to impose sweeping tariffs on nearly all countries by declaring trade and security emergencies. Lower courts have repeatedly ruled against him, saying he overstepped legal boundaries, but the administration is betting the conservative-majority court will back his expansive view of presidential authority, the Wall Street Journal reported.
How the tariff dispute began
Trump invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977 to justify a 10% baseline tariff on almost all imports, with higher rates for some countries such as China, Canada, and Mexico. He framed the move as necessary to protect national security, including from drug trafficking and trade imbalances. But the law doesn’t mention tariffs, and no previous president has used it to levy import taxes. That legal gap became the central point of challenge.
Lower court rulings set the stage
Fifteen judges across three federal courts have considered Trump’s tariff manoeuvres, and the majority found no legal basis. The most significant blow came from the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which rejected the tariffs outright and set a mid-October deadline for the administration to appeal to the Supreme Court. The White House always expected this fight would end up at the high court, where it hopes the justices will adopt a broader reading of presidential powers.
Why the Supreme Court could go either way
The case forces the justices to balance two competing approaches. On one hand, the Court’s conservative bloc has been sympathetic to Trump’s emergency claims and has often granted his administration temporary relief in other disputes. On the other hand, the Court has recently invoked the “major questions doctrine” to rein in expansive presidential actions, striking down Biden-era initiatives such as student loan forgiveness and Covid workplace rules. That doctrine could also be applied to tariffs, which have vast economic and political consequences.
What makes this case unusual
Unlike many legal battles that pit Trump against liberal states or advocacy groups, this case has drawn support from small businesses, trade associations, and even some right-leaning organizations. They argue the tariffs hurt American consumers and industries, and that Trump bypassed Congress’s role in setting trade policy. That makes the case a broader test of constitutional boundaries, not just partisan politics.
A dissent that may help Trump
In the Federal Circuit’s decision, Judge Richard Taranto, an Obama appointee, wrote a dissent that may bolster Trump’s case. Joined by three others, he argued that IEEPA’s broad language gives the president flexibility to use tariffs as a tool against unusual or extraordinary threats. White House adviser Peter Navarro has pointed to this dissent as a “road map” for how the Supreme Court could rule in Trump’s favor.
What happens next
The administration has until mid-October to file its appeal, and the Supreme Court could decide by early 2026 whether to hear the case. Oral arguments would likely take place in the winter or spring, with a decision months later. In the meantime, the government can continue collecting tariffs, giving Trump room to maintain his trade strategy.
Why it matters
At stake is not only Trump’s signature trade policy but also the future scope of presidential power. If the Court upholds his use of emergency authority to impose tariffs, it could set a precedent for future presidents—Republican or Democrat—to bypass Congress on major economic issues. If it rejects Trump’s arguments, it would mark a rare judicial pushback on a presidency that has sought to stretch executive power further than most of its predecessors.
Discover the latest Business News, Sensex, and Nifty updates. Obtain Personal Finance insights, tax queries, and expert opinions on Moneycontrol or download the Moneycontrol App to stay updated!
