US Supreme Court justices are questioning the legality of the ’emergency powers’ used by Donald Trump to impose tariffs, based on a 1977 law meant to protect national security.
Justices Question Legal Basis of ‘Emergency Tariffs’
Gathered in Washington, the nine justices listened to hours of arguments from the government. The crux of the debate: the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a law passed in 1977 to allow the president to act swiftly in the face of a serious national security threat. The issue at hand is the use of this law to tax foreign products, a move unprecedented in the past.
The Chief Justice, John Roberts, raised a question that made the White House uneasy:
‘Has the imposition of taxes on Americans not always been a power reserved for Congress?’
Other conservative justices, like Neil Gorsuch, warned against ‘the continued accumulation of executive power at the expense of the people’.
Trump Gambles Big: $50 Billion at Stake
For Donald Trump, this case is existential. In a message before the hearing, he stated that a defeat would mean ‘the economic death of the United States’. This is due to over $50 billion in tariff revenues collected so far this year, and the credibility of a trade policy based on reciprocity and toughness.
These tariffs target not only China but also Canada, Mexico, France, and Spain, accused by the US of disrupting trade or turning a blind eye to fentanyl trafficking. A ruling against the tariffs could halt future sanctions and force the administration to reimburse certain American companies.
Trump and Executive Defend ‘Economic Emergency’
Facing the Court, Solicitor General John Sauer tried to convince the justices that the country was facing an ‘imminent economic and security catastrophe’. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, also present, remained optimistic:
‘The hearing went well. The president simply wants to rebalance our trade and bring factories back home.’
However, even conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned: ‘Really, every country threatens national security? Even France?’ This skeptical sentiment echoes throughout, even within Trump’s camp.
A Verdict That Will Redraw Global Trade
If the Court invalidates the use of the IEEPA, the White House will need to find another legal basis to uphold its ‘war tariffs’. This setback would slow tax revenues and weaken the rapid industrialization plan set in motion since January.
But beyond the legal debate, it’s the entire Trump doctrine being tested: that of a protectionist America willing to use tariff threats as diplomatic leverage. In a world already shaken by rising trade tensions, the awaited verdict in the coming weeks could redefine the balance of international commerce and, consequently, impact global markets.
