The U.S. Supreme Court just threw a wrench into President Donald Trump’s tariff strategy with a hearing that could reshape executive power.
On Wednesday, the nation’s highest court tackled arguments over Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to slap hefty tariffs on imports, sparking a fiery debate about whether the president overstepped his bounds, as New York Post reports.
The case centers on Trump’s broad application of IEEPA, a 1977 law meant to give presidents emergency control over international trade, to impose a 10% baseline tariff on numerous countries and an extra 10% on China for its role in fentanyl shipments.
During the oral arguments, most of the nine justices—spanning both conservative and liberal appointees—grilled the administration’s representative with tough questions about stretching IEEPA to cover tariffs, a term not even mentioned in the statute.
“Congress, as a practical matter, can’t get this power back once it’s handed it over to the president,” warned conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch. And let’s be honest, he’s got a point—when power slips to the executive, it’s like trying to unring a bell in a progressive echo chamber.
No other president has wielded IEEPA to levy duties, which makes Trump’s move stand out like a sore thumb, raising about $90 billion as of late September, per U.S. Customs and Border Patrol data.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent was front and center at the hearing, signaling just how much this case means to the administration’s economic playbook.
Outside the court, protesters from both camps clashed, some donning “Handmaid’s Tale” costumes with signs like “No Fascist America,” which, frankly, feels like theatrical overreach when the issue is trade policy, not dystopia. Still, it shows how heated this tariff fight has become for everyday Americans.
Two lower federal courts have already ruled that Trump lacks the authority under IEEPA to impose these specific “trafficking” and “reciprocal” tariffs, setting the stage for this Supreme Court showdown.
The justices’ skepticism wasn’t just a polite nudge—it was a full-on interrogation of whether IEEPA’s language about “regulating importation” can be twisted to mean tariffs. “The vehicle is imposition of taxes on Americans, and that has always been a core power of Congress,” Chief Justice John Roberts noted sharply. If that doesn’t scream “stay in your lane, executive branch,” nothing does.
A decision isn’t expected until the end of June, leaving plenty of time for speculation and, likely, more political posturing on both sides.
If the administration loses, senior White House trade adviser Peter Navarro has hinted that Trump might pivot to other tools, like Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, to keep some levies in place temporarily. That’s a classic MAGA move—never back down, just find another angle.
Let’s not ignore the stakes: these tariffs are about protecting American interests, especially when it comes to curbing fentanyl flows from China, but they also burden consumers with higher costs. It’s a tough tightrope, and the court’s ruling could redefine how much leeway any president gets in a crisis.
For now, the nation waits as the Supreme Court deliberates whether Trump’s bold tariff play under IEEPA is a legitimate use of emergency authority or an overstep that needs to be reined in. While some may cry “executive tyranny,” others see a leader taking decisive action against real threats—time will tell which view prevails.
