Trump’s Sweeping Tariffs Face High-Stakes Supreme Court Test

Politics|Trump’s Sweeping Tariffs Face High-Stakes Supreme Court Test

The Supreme Court on Wednesday will consider the legality of President Trump’s use of emergency powers to impose tariffs on imports from nearly every U.S. trading partner, a high-stakes test of presidential power.

The outcome of the case, which could be decided within weeks or months, has immense economic and political implications for U.S. businesses, consumers and the president’s second-term agenda.

At issue is Mr. Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 to unilaterally set tariffs on imports from more than 100 countries in an attempt to reduce the trade deficit and ignite more manufacturing in the United States.

Mr. Trump on Tuesday called the case “literally, LIFE OR DEATH for our Country,” underscoring the degree to which he views it as critical to his trade and foreign policies. Without the emergency power, he said in a social media post, the country “is virtually defenseless against other Countries who have, for years, taken advantage of us.”

The tariffs were challenged in court by a dozen states, in addition to small businesses, including a wine importer and an educational toy manufacturer. Hundreds of small businesses have separately joined court filings that call Mr. Trump’s actions unlawful, saying the tariffs have forced them to raise prices and scale back staffing.

Until now, the court’s conservative majority has been largely receptive to Mr. Trump’s claims of presidential authority, but it has ruled largely on emergency orders that have been technically temporary. The tariffs case, which is considered a legal tossup by experts, is the first time in Mr. Trump’s second term that the justices will address the underlying legal merits of a major administration priority in a more lasting way.

The key question for the justices on Wednesday is whether the president exceeded his authority when he used the 1977 emergency statute. Past presidents have relied on the law to impose sanctions or embargoes on other countries, but Mr. Trump is the first to use it to impose tariffs.

Almost immediately after returning to the White House, Mr. Trump announced tariffs on goods imported into the United States from China, Canada and Mexico, saying the levies were a punishment for failing to stop the flow of fentanyl. In April, he expanded the tariffs to imports on goods from more than 100 trading partners, saying they were needed to address trade deficits with the rest of the world.

The challengers counter that the word “regulate” does not encompass the power to impose tariffs. The statute itself does not include the words “tariffs,” “taxes” or “duties.”

The Constitution gives Congress the power to tax. The challengers say that when lawmakers have intended to delegate tariff authority to the president, they have done so in plain language — and with limits — as they did in several other statutes.

If the justices were to rule against Mr. Trump, the administration says it would be forced to unwind trade deals with other countries. The government might also have to pay billions in refunds to importers.

D. John Sauer, the solicitor general, has told the court that rolling back the tariffs could lead to economic ruin akin to the Great Depression, an interruption of trade negotiations and diplomatic embarrassment.

But even with a loss, the president would have other options. He could rely on different statutes to impose duties, but on a more limited basis and with less flexibility. The administration has proposed or issued tariffs that cover more than a third of U.S. imports under a nonemergency provision related to national security, known as Section 232.

In a sign of how pivotal the case is to the administration’s agenda, Mr. Trump had talked publicly about attending Wednesday’s argument before reversing course on Sunday, saying he would stay away to avoid becoming a distraction. Instead, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told Fox News on Monday that he planned to go to court and “sit hopefully in the front row and listen, have a ringside seat.”

“I am there to emphasize that this is an economic emergency,” he said. “National security is economic security. Economic security is national security. As the Treasury secretary of the United States, I’m in charge of maintaining both.”

The case reached the Supreme Court after three lower courts concluded the tariffs were unlawful.

In August, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled 7 to 4 that the emergency statute did not authorize the sweeping tariffs while declining to decide whether the statute might allow Mr. Trump to impose more limited duties.

“Whenever Congress intends to delegate to the president the authority to impose tariffs, it does so explicitly,” the majority said.

In dissent, Judge Richard G. Taranto, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, said that the statute should be read to give presidents more flexibility to respond to emergencies and that it represented “an eyes-open congressional grant of broad emergency authority in this foreign affairs realm.”