SC Questions Trump’s Use of Emergency Law for Record Tariffs, Citing Congressional Powers

In a tense Supreme Court showdown on Wednesday, November 5, 2025, the nine justices dissected the legality of President Donald Trump's expansive tariff regime, a cornerstone of his "America First" economic crusade that's reshaped global trade and raked in record revenues. The oral arguments in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump—pitting small businesses and states against the administration—could either solidify Trump's unilateral trade hammer or clip its wings, handing Congress a win in the perennial tug-of-war over executive muscle. With Trump's second term barely underway, these levies have spiked the average U.S. tariff rate to 16.3%, the loftiest since the Great Depression, funneling $151 billion into federal coffers in just six months—a 300% leap year-over-year.

Trump leaned on the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to justify "reciprocal" tariffs mirroring foreign duties on U.S. goods, plus targeted hits on Mexico, Canada, and China for drug trafficking woes. Solicitor General D. John Sauer defended vigorously, calling tariffs a "core" tool for regulating foreign commerce during crises. "Without nimble tariff powers, we'd be defenseless," he argued, brushing off the "major questions doctrine" as inapplicable to national security turf. Sauer cited Justice Brett Kavanaugh's recent nod to presidential leeway abroad, insisting IEEPA's "regulate importation" clause greenlights duties without explicit "tax" language.

Yet the bench fired back across ideological lines. Chief Justice John Roberts highlighted IEEPA's silence on tariffs, nodding to Article I's mandate that only Congress wields taxation power. Justice Sonia Sotomayor echoed: "The Constitution assigns taxing to Congress, not the president." Justice Amy Coney Barrett grilled both sides on refund chaos—potentially $750 billion—if struck down, while conservatives like Clarence Thomas and Kavanaugh questioned endless "emergencies" as a slippery slope. Liberals Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson spotlighted oddities, like 39% duties on surplus-trading Switzerland, branding it unprecedented overreach.

Also Read: Trump Expresses Strong Admiration for PM Modi, Pushes Trade Discussions With India

Challengers, led by ex-Solicitor General Neal Katyal, slammed the moves as a "vast economic" power grab demanding congressional clarity under the major questions doctrine. "No president has tariffed allies like this," Katyal thundered, warning of precedents for taxing produce over policy spats. Backed by 40 amicus briefs from firms hammered by import hikes, Democratic states, and even Federalist Society founders, they noted lower courts already nixed the tariffs. Economists peg the pain at $1,200 per household annually, stoking small-business gripes without the promised inflation shield or deficit slash.

Trump, dubbing it a "life-or-death" case for America, skipped the hearing to dodge "distractions" but sent Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Trade Rep Jamieson Greer for "ringside" support. Bessent framed it as an "economic emergency" on Fox, optimistic post-args: "Strong case made." Markets yawned with an S&P tick up, but fallout looms: Uphold, and Trump turbocharges trade wars; strike down, and fallbacks cap duties at 15% short-term, sparing renegotiated deals.

Analysts call it unpredictable—the court's conservative tilt has blessed other Trump plays, but shifting power to the Oval Office irks institutionalists. A spring 2026 ruling could halve rates, trigger refunds, and ripple from retail shelves to rival capitals. As Trump eyes more salvos, this isn't just about tariffs; it's a verdict on whether one leader's "emergency" trumps the Framers' checks, with America's wallet and world order in the crosshairs.

Also Read: Report Finds Most of Trump’s Ballroom Donors Awarded Federal Government Contracts