The Supreme Court is about to decide if President Donald Trump’s bold tariff strategy will stand or crumble under legal scrutiny.
This Wednesday, November 5, 2025, the highest court in the land will tackle challenges to Trump’s use of emergency powers to slap tariffs on countries across the globe, marking a pivotal moment for his trade agenda, as New York Post reports.
Since February 2025, Trump has been signing executive orders left and right, imposing tariffs on various nations, and by September 30, 2025, he rolled out a massive wave of duties under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), raking in $90 billion out of a total $195 billion in tariff revenue.
Trump’s wielding of the IEEPA—a 1977 law never before used by any president to impose such sweeping worldwide tariffs—has raised eyebrows and legal challenges alike. He’s targeted countries for issues like fentanyl trafficking into the U.S. and trade deficits with “reciprocal” tariffs, but the law itself doesn’t even mention the word “tariff.”
Now, a family-owned toy-making firm and a wine importer, also selling women’s cycling apparel, have stepped up to argue that IEEPA doesn’t grant Trump the authority to impose these duties. Lower courts have already sided against the president, setting the stage for a blockbuster Supreme Court showdown.
Petitioners are banking on the court’s conservative majority, with their originalist leanings, to interpret IEEPA’s text and intent narrowly, claiming Trump’s actions overstep the law’s purpose.
Historically, President Richard Nixon used a precursor law, the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917, to impose a 10% duty on imports, but that’s a far cry from Trump’s global tariff blitz. Article I of the Constitution clearly grants Congress the power to lay taxes and duties, not the executive branch, which is a central argument against Trump’s moves.
“It’s very uncertain given the makeup of the court,” says Gregory Shaffer, a Georgetown Law professor, casting doubt on the outcome. But let’s be real—uncertainty is just a polite way of saying the justices might not bow to the progressive agenda trying to kneecap Trump’s efforts to protect American interests.
On the flip side, the Supreme Court has often deferred to the presidency on national security matters, which could tilt the scales in Trump’s favor.
If Trump loses, he’s not out of moves—he could pivot to other authorities like Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, though those come with delays and limits unlike the broad brush of IEEPA. He’s already using some of these powers for specific duties on materials like steel and aluminum.
A loss could also mean chaos for the Treasury, with about half of the tariffs potentially requiring refunds—a logistical nightmare that could drain federal coffers. “We would have to give a refund on about half the tariffs, which would be terrible for the Treasury,” admitted Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, underscoring the high stakes.
The Libertarian-leaning CATO Institute has even weighed in with briefs suggesting ways to streamline refunds to direct importers, though consumers hit by price hikes might be left out in the cold.
Trump himself has called this “one of the most important cases ever brought,” showing just how much rides on this decision, even musing about attending the oral arguments on November 5, 2025, before clarifying he’d stay away. His concern is palpable, and why wouldn’t it be when his trade agenda—a cornerstone of putting America first—hangs in the balance?
With a roughly 90% win rate before the Supreme Court, mostly on shadow docket cases per a Court Accountability study, Trump’s got a strong track record, though this merits case is a different beast. Still, those odds should give pause to anyone rooting for the anti-tariff crowd, who often seem more concerned with globalist ideals than American jobs.
