The Supreme Court is currently examining whether President Donald Trump’s use of emergency powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs on most imports is legally sound. During oral arguments, several justices, including those appointed by Trump, appeared skeptical about the administration’s interpretation of the law’s scope and intent. This case could have significant implications for the broader debate on executive authority, especially in economic matters.
In the recent hearing, the justices focused on the IEEPA’s provisions, which grant the president broad economic powers during national emergencies tied to foreign threats. Trump used this law to justify his ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs, a policy that has been a cornerstone of his economic strategy. However, the law itself does not use the terms ‘tariffs’ or ‘taxes,’ creating a legal dispute about whether the executive branch can interpret these provisions as granting the authority to levy tariffs. The question of what ‘regulate importation’ means under the IEEPA is central to the case, with several justices expressing concern about the potential expansion of executive power beyond its constitutional limits.
Several conservative justices, including Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, raised doubts about allowing the administration to use the IEEPA in such a manner. Barrett, in particular, questioned the Solicitor General’s argument that the phrase ‘regulate importation’ could authorize the imposition of tariffs, seeking historical precedents for such a reading. Gorsuch further challenged the administration’s legal theory, referencing the ‘major questions doctrine,’ which emphasizes that Congress must clearly approve significant economic actions. The justices also raised concerns about the separation of powers, noting that the IEEPA does not explicitly transfer Congress’ Article I power over revenue and taxation to the executive branch.
The liberal justices on the Court similarly expressed skepticism, indicating that without explicit authorization from Congress, the IEEPA does not provide the executive branch with the authority to impose tariffs. This position aligns with recent judicial trends that have been more rigorous in interpreting ambiguous statutes, especially in cases involving large-scale economic impacts. The ‘major questions doctrine,’ highlighted by Gorsuch and other justices, suggests that such sweeping measures need unequivocal congressional support to be legal.
Legal analysts, including Professor Jonathan Turley and former Attorney General Jack Goldsmith, have noted that the justices’ skepticism could lead to a ruling in favor of the challengers, who argue that the IEEPA is not a vehicle for implementing tariffs. However, the outcome remains uncertain, and the justices’ questions do not definitively indicate a clear leaning, as this is just a portion of the total deliberation. A final ruling is expected by late 2025, which may have far-reaching consequences for the executive’s use of emergency powers.