In a courtroom drama that could reshape economic policy, the Supreme Court’s latest hearing has put President Trump’s ambitious tariff agenda under a harsh spotlight.
The justices, during oral arguments on Wednesday, dissected the legality of Trump’s wide-ranging tariffs, including the bold "Liberation Day" levies and additional duties slapped on Canada, Mexico, and China, as reported by Axios. Their skepticism hints at a potential blow to one of Trump’s flagship priorities for his second term.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, often swing votes in tight cases, signaled unease with the sheer scope of executive power Trump claims. Roberts pointedly remarked, “The vehicle is imposition of taxes on Americans, and that has always been a core power of Congress,” questioning whether such authority should rest solely with the president.
A federal appeals court had already deemed many of Trump’s tariffs illegal, leaning on the Supreme Court’s own “major questions doctrine.” This principle bars the executive branch from enacting policies of vast economic and political weight without clear congressional approval.
The doctrine previously axed Biden’s student-loan forgiveness and a COVID-era eviction moratorium. Trump’s tariffs, with even broader economic ripples, seem to stumble over the same legal hurdle, as lower courts have argued.
Roberts drove the point home, stating, “It does seem like that’s major authority,” when addressing Trump’s claim to impose tariffs on any product, from any nation, at any rate, for any duration. Such unchecked power, he implied, risks sidelining Congress in a domain historically theirs to govern.
The Justice Department pushed back, asserting Congress has granted the president sweeping tariff authority through existing statutes. Yet, some conservative justices appeared dubious, noting the law’s historical use never stretched to this extent.
Justice Barrett underscored this concern, saying, “It’s pretty clear that Congress was trying to constrain the emergency powers of the president,” not hand over a blank check. Her words suggest a wariness of executive overreach dressed up as emergency action.
Still, not all justices leaned against Trump, with Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh appearing more sympathetic to his position. Meanwhile, the court’s liberal wing seemed poised to unite in opposition, setting up a tense ideological divide.
Roberts raised a counterpoint, wondering if curbing Trump’s tariff powers might hamstring presidential flexibility in foreign policy. It’s a fair concern when trade often doubles as a diplomatic lever, though it hardly justifies bypassing legislative checks.
Barrett echoed a practical worry, questioning how businesses already hit by these tariffs would be reimbursed if the court rules against them. Restricting trade too tightly, she hinted, could also carry unintended economic fallout.
Oral arguments, however, remain a murky crystal ball for predicting the court’s final ruling. Both sides faced sharp scrutiny, leaving the outcome hanging in a delicate balance as markets and policymakers await clarity.
Financial markets are already jittery, with prediction platforms like Polymarket slashing the odds of the court upholding Trump’s tariffs to about 22% by midday Wednesday, down from 40% pre-hearing. Such numbers reflect a growing unease about the economic shockwaves a negative ruling could unleash.
Solicitor General John Sauer tried distinguishing tariffs from taxes, but mainstream economists—and seemingly many justices—aren’t buying the split. When tariffs raise costs for American consumers, they function as a tax by any reasonable measure, undercutting the administration’s semantic dodge.
This case isn’t just about trade policy; it’s a test of how far executive power can stretch before snapping under constitutional weight. A ruling against Trump could rein in presidential overreach, reminding us that even bold agendas must bow to the checks and balances our founders crafted.
