WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has scheduled an unusually rapid hearing regarding President Donald Trump’s tariffs, placing a critical element of his economic strategy front and center before the highest judicial authority in the United States. The justices are set to hear the case in November, which is remarkably swift compared to the usual timelines of the Supreme Court, and will provide a ruling thereafter. Notably, the tariffs will remain intact during this period.
The court's decision to take up an appeal from the Trump administration follows findings by lower courts that deemed the majority of his tariffs as illegal. Small businesses and various states that challenged these tariffs have also agreed to this expedited schedule, arguing that Trump’s import taxes on goods from almost every nation have brought them to the brink of bankruptcy. Attorney Jeffrey Schwab, representing the Liberty Justice Center, emphasized, “Congress, not the President alone, has the power to impose tariffs.”
Two lower courts concurred that Trump lacked the authority to impose the tariffs under existing emergency powers legislation; however, a divided appeals court opted to maintain their enforcement. The Trump administration has urged the justices for a swift intervention, asserting that the law grants him the authority to regulate imports and that invalidating the tariffs could lead the nation to face “economic catastrophe.”
This case will be addressed by a court that has generally shown reluctance to limit Trump’s considerable executive powers. A significant question at hand is whether the justices' broad interpretation of presidential authority permits Trump's tariffs to stand without the explicit endorsement of Congress, which the Constitution grants the power to levy tariffs.
Three justices on the current conservative-majority court were nominated by Trump during his first term, potentially influencing their perspectives on this matter. Despite concerns that the tariffs and their unpredictable implementation could result in higher prices and hinder economic growth, Trump has leveraged them as a tool to compel other countries into agreeing to new trade agreements.
By late August, the revenue generated from tariffs reached $159 billion, more than double the amount collected at the same time the previous year. Solicitor General D. John Sauer has argued that the rulings from lower courts are already impacting ongoing trade negotiations. Should the tariffs be revoked, Trump administration officials have indicated that the U.S. Treasury may face financial repercussions, including having to refund some of the import taxes collected.
Furthermore, a ruling against the tariffs could undermine the nation’s capacity to combat the influx of fentanyl and hinder efforts to address the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, according to Sauer. The administration did manage to persuade four appeals court judges who acknowledged that the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) enables the president to regulate imports during emergencies without explicit constraints.
Over the past few decades, Congress has relinquished some authority over tariffs to the president, a situation Trump has exploited extensively. The current case involves two distinct sets of import taxes, both justified by Trump through the declaration of a national emergency: the tariffs first introduced in April and those imposed in February on imports from Canada, China, and Mexico. Notably, this case does not encompass his tariffs on foreign steel, aluminum, and automobiles, nor the tariffs on China from his initial term, which have been sustained under Democratic President Joe Biden.
While Trump can impose tariffs under other legislative frameworks, those alternatives impose greater restrictions on the speed and intensity of his actions, thereby influencing the broader economic landscape.
