- The Supreme Court will hear arguments in November on the legality of Trump’s global tariffs.
- Trump used the IEEPA to impose levies on dozens of countries, citing national security threats.
- Lower courts ruled the move unconstitutional, saying only Congress can impose tariffs.
- If overturned, the US may have to refund billions in import taxes.
- The case could affect current and future trade deals and reshape presidential trade powers.
The US Supreme Court has agreed to hear a landmark case that could redefine presidential authority over trade policy and determine the fate of billions of dollars in tariffs imposed under Donald Trump’s administration. At the heart of the legal battle is whether Trump lawfully used emergency powers to levy sweeping tariffs on dozens of trading partners — a move that has reshaped global commerce and sparked fierce constitutional debate.
The tariffs, ranging from 10% to 50%, were enacted under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law designed to help presidents respond to foreign threats. While previous administrations used the statute to freeze assets or impose sanctions, Trump became the first to apply it to broad-based import taxes, arguing that trade imbalances posed a national security emergency.
Lower courts have ruled that Trump exceeded his authority, stating that the power to impose tariffs rests with Congress. The appeals court’s decision triggered an appeal from the Justice Department, which warned that overturning the tariffs could destabilize the economy and force the US to refund hundreds of billions in collected duties.
The Supreme Court has fast-tracked the case, scheduling oral arguments for the first week of November. Legal experts say the outcome could impact trade deals with countries like the UK, Japan, and India, and potentially unravel agreements negotiated under Trump’s “America First” agenda.
While the tariffs remain in effect during litigation, importers and foreign governments are watching closely. A ruling against Trump could trigger a wave of refund claims and disrupt ongoing negotiations. The administration has defended its actions, insisting that the emergency powers were used appropriately to protect national interests.
The case marks the court’s first direct review of Trump’s economic policies and could set a precedent for how far presidents can go in using emergency statutes to shape global trade.
