The Supreme Court spent Wednesday questioning whether Trump had the legal power to place sweeping tariffs on imports from most of the world without Congress signing off.
Both conservative and liberal justices pushed hard on the government’s lawyer, pressing on where the president’s authority ends and where Congress’s authority begins.
Businesses affected by these tariffs are also speaking out. One of the plaintiffs in the SCOTUS suit, Victor Owen Schwartz, reportedly told CNBC, “For nearly 40 years, my family has built this business from the ground up, but today, Trump’s reckless tariffs threaten everything we’ve achieved. Let’s be clear: these tariffs aren’t paid by foreign governments or companies. It’s American businesses like mine, and American consumers, that are footing the bill.”
Victor continued, “Unlike past tariffs set by Congress that we could plan around, these new tariffs are arbitrary. They’re unpredictable. And they’re bad business.”
Lower federal courts already ruled that the administration did not have the legal basis to do this. Those courts said Trump had no authority under IEEPA to impose “reciprocal tariffs” on imports from many U.S. trading partners or the “fentanyl tariffs” aimed at products from Canada, China, and Mexico.
The administration appealed the ruling, arguing that the tariffs were not taxes, but tools to manage foreign trade. This case now sits in front of the highest court, where the stakes are huge for trade, executive power, and how future presidents could use emergency laws.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer defended the tariffs, saying, “These are regulatory tariffs. They are not revenue-raising tariffs.” He claimed any revenue was “only incidental.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor pushed back fast, saying, “You say tariffs are not taxes, but that’s exactly what they are. They’re generating money from American citizens, revenue.” She later noted that no president other than Trump has ever used IEEPA to impose tariffs since it became law in 1977.
Justice Neil Gorsuch questioned whether the president could declare emergency after emergency to bypass Congress. He asked, “What happens when the president simply vetoes legislation to take these powers back?”
Neil followed with, “So Congress as a practical matter can’t get this power back once it’s handed it over to the president. It’s a one-way ratchet toward the gradual but continual accretion of power in the executive branch and away from the people’s elected representatives.”
Conservative justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts, Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, and Samuel Alito, also questioned the government’s position. The core issue: whether IEEPA can be used to impose tariffs, which historically fall under Congress’s authority to tax and regulate trade.
Economic stakes and market reaction show real impact
If these tariffs stand, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates about $3 trillion in extra revenue for the United States by 2035.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, in a court filing in September, said the U.S. might have to refund $750 billion or more if the Supreme Court ruled the tariffs are illegal and if it waited until next summer to issue that ruling.
Meanwhile, on prediction platform Kalshi, contracts betting that the Court would uphold the tariffs dropped from nearly 50% to around 30%. A similar move happened on Polymarket, where contracts fell from more than 40% to about 30%.
Trump, for his part, is defiant. In a Truth Social post, he wrote, “Tomorrow’s United States Supreme Court case is, literally, LIFE OR DEATH for our Country.”
The president said a win would mean “tremendous, but fair, Financial and National Security” and argued that without the tariffs, the U.S. would be “defenseless against other Countries.”
Sharpen your strategy with mentorship + daily ideas - 30 days free access to our trading program
