Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Trump Tariffs, Justices Express Doubts on Emergency Powers
The US Supreme Court is reviewing President Trump's tariffs, with justices expressing skepticism over his emergency powers after challenges from businesses and states.
The Big Question Behind the Tariffs Case
New York Sun
Why the Supreme Court Might Kill Trump’s Tariffs
The Free Press
Supreme Court pits president's economic powers against foreign policy powers
Washington Examiner
Tariffs case marks latest Supreme Court look at presidential powers
Washington Examiner
Overview
- The US Supreme Court is currently hearing oral arguments concerning President Trump's tariffs, scrutinizing his use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
- Justices on the Supreme Court have expressed significant doubts regarding President Trump's broad claims of authority to unilaterally impose tariffs using emergency powers.
- Small American businesses and several states have legally challenged President Trump's tariffs, leading to lower courts ruling these measures as illegal.
- President Trump has warned that striking down his tariffs, which have raised the average U.S. tariff to 17.9%, would leave the US vulnerable and diminish its global standing.
- A potential ruling against President Trump could compel the Treasury to refund over $100 billion in collected tariff revenue and significantly weaken future trade negotiation leverage.
Report issue
Read both sides in 5 minutes each day
Analysis
Center-leaning sources provide neutral coverage of the Supreme Court's tariff arguments, focusing on the legal debate and justices' questions. They present a balanced view by detailing arguments from both the Trump administration and challengers, alongside the varied perspectives of conservative and liberal justices, without adopting a definitive stance on the tariffs' legality or economic impact.
"The justices did not seem sympathetic to the arguments put forth by Trump's team."
Reason"Resistance to arbitrary power fueled the American Revolution and inspired the Founding."
The Bulwark"Despite President Trump’s constant pronouncements that his tariffs will raise trillions in revenue, the solicitor general insisted that the tariffs were “regulatory tariffs, not revenue-raising tariffs” that would be “most successful” if they never raised any money at all."
The Dispatch"The truth, though, is that Trump will still have plenty of options to keep taxing imports aggressively even if the court rules against him."
ABC News"Trump will still have plenty of options to keep taxing imports aggressively even if the court rules against him."
Associated Press"The administration could be in trouble."
The Free Press"Overall, a majority of the justices appeared skeptical of the broad interpretation of the 1977 law governing emergency economic powers that the Trump administration claims provides unlimited tariff power."
ABC News"The case could be crucial for companies like Learning Resources, according to University of Illinois Chicago law professor Steven Schwinn."
Chicago Sun-Times"The justices questioned whether Trump has the power to impose sweeping tariffs on most imports."
USA TODAY"The supermajority, which includes three Trump picks, has spent much of the year putting its imprimatur on most of the president’s efforts to centralize power in the Oval Office."
Bloomberg"The hearing also underscored a tension in Trump’s economic policy: While the White House for months has trumpeted the funds brought in by the tariffs, the government argued Wednesday that the duties are not meant to be “revenue-raising,” but merely “regulatory.”"
Semafor"If Trump gets what he wants when it comes to tariffs, it will open the door for a whole lot worse."
Reason"The Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday over the legality of President Donald Trump’s global tariffs program in a blockbuster case with extraordinary significance for American consumers and businesses, the nation’s financial health, global diplomacy, and future presidential power."
ABC News"The debate seemed to center on perhaps the most basic of questions when it comes to interpreting the law: Did Congress mean what it said when it wrote the law?"
Reason"Both the court's six conservatives and its three liberals sharply questioned D. John Sauer, the solicitor general, on Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, known as IEEPA."
NPR"The hearing drew a full audience, with press pushed into overflow seats behind columns."
BBC News"Whichever way the justices rule, their decision will affect Trump’s agenda, the economy, the federal budget, presidential power and businesses and households that are bearing the brunt of the tariffs."
USA TODAY"The technology sector has been driving gains this year, but some analysts think that Tuesday's widespread losses may portend the beginning of the end of that run."
ABC News"The US Supreme Court will hear the first arguments of a case to determine the legality of President Donald Trumpâs tariffs today, litigation that could shape presidential powers for decades."
Semafor"The dispute over Mr. Trump's efforts to use IEEPA to impose his sweeping tariffs comes as he has tested the boundaries of his presidential authority, including through his firings of independent agency officials, the withholding of $4 billion in foreign aid approved by Congress and his efforts to overhaul the executive branch."
CBS News"The consequences are huge for Trump and the economy at large, with Americans increasingly anxious amid signs that the tariffs are contributing to, rather than alleviating, higher costs."
NBC News"Yet even if the justices rule against the duties, implemented by President Donald Trump on a country-by-country basis, analysts argue there’s no guarantee that things will return to normal for consumers and businesses."
NBC News"The decision, which may not come for months, offers a significant opening for the Supreme Court to define the extent of presidential power, particularly as a proxy to Congress’ constitutional authorities."
NBC News"The issue the justices must resolve is whether Trump has the power to unilaterally set tariff rates under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, known as IEEPA."
NPR"The case centers on two sets of tariffs."
ABC News"The stakes are enormous, both politically and financially."
ABC News"Although Trump's tariffs are not working as advertised, the economists note, they will have "a massive impact across the United States," amounting to trillions of dollars during the next decade."
ReasonArticles (64)
Center (27)
FAQ
The IEEPA is a 1977 federal law that grants the President broad powers to regulate economic transactions during national emergencies. President Trump used this act to justify imposing sweeping tariffs on imports, claiming it authorizes tariffs as a means to "regulate importation." However, its wording does not explicitly mention tariffs, and this is the first time a president has used IEEPA to impose tariffs on such a large scale.
Justices expressed doubt because the IEEPA does not explicitly authorize tariffs and has never been used for this purpose before. They are concerned about the broad scope of power claimed by Trump to impose duties on imports from almost any country, questioning whether Congress clearly authorized such sweeping tariff powers.
If the Court rules against Trump, the Treasury may be required to refund over $100 billion in tariff revenue collected. Additionally, it would weaken the U.S. government's leverage in future trade negotiations and could undermine the administration's trade agreements and national security justifications.
Small American businesses and several states have challenged the tariffs in court, arguing that the tariffs are illegal because the President lacks the congressional authorization to impose such widespread duties unilaterally under the IEEPA.
President Trump has warned that invalidating his tariffs would leave the U.S. vulnerable to aggressive trade retaliation by other countries and damage the country’s global standing. He also highlighted that tariffs have helped negotiate large trade agreements with key partners, implying their essential role in U.S. economic and national security strategy.
History
- 4d
7 articles - 4d8 articles
- 4d9 articles
- 4d
5 articles
- 5d6 articles
- 5d10 articles