The U.S. Supreme Court is diving headfirst into a blockbuster case that could redefine presidential power and shake the global economy with President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs hanging in the balance.
According to Fox News, this Wednesday, the court will tackle lawsuits challenging Trump's use of a declared "national emergency" to slap tariffs on nearly every country, a move contested by small businesses and Democratic-led states as an overreach of executive authority.
Since February, Trump has leaned on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to justify these tariffs, claiming an economic crisis necessitated action, including "trafficking tariffs" on Canada, China, and Mexico over fentanyl issues, and "reciprocal tariffs" of 10% to 50% on goods from virtually all nations.
The plaintiffs argue that in the five decades of IEEPA’s existence, no president has ever wielded it for such broad, worldwide levies—a point that raises eyebrows about whether this is innovation or overstep.
Lower federal courts have already sided against the administration, blocking these tariffs, but the Supreme Court, with its 6-3 conservative majority, fast-tracked the appeal, signaling urgency amid ongoing trade negotiations with dozens of countries.
The financial and political fallout could be massive, with businesses and industries watching closely as global economic uncertainty looms and consumer prices threaten to spike, even as Trump uses these tariffs as leverage for new trade deals.
Legal analysts suggest the court may lean toward granting Trump broad unilateral powers, especially given its recent track record of reversing about two dozen preliminary injunctions from lower courts and siding with the administration on emergency appeals since January.
This case, titled Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc., marks the first major test of Trump’s aggressive second-term agenda to reshape federal authority, and it’s just the start of a packed docket.
Come December and January, the justices will also weigh in on Trump’s power to fire federal regulatory officials and remove Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve Board, alongside potential appeals on citizenship, immigration, and environmental policies.
On Wednesday, at least 80 minutes of oral arguments—likely stretching longer due to novel constitutional questions—will stream live on the court’s website, with justices grilling lawyers from the federal government, businesses, and states.
After the public session, the justices will huddle privately, possibly that same day, for a preliminary vote, assigning majority and dissenting opinions to draft a ruling that could set precedent for executive power disputes.
About four dozen "amicus" briefs from advocacy groups, states, and scholars add to the legal firepower, while a ruling on the merits could arrive within weeks, given the urgency both sides have pressed for.
“The Supreme Court will decide whether or not Congress, in fact, gave the president the fairly broad authority that he's claimed to impose [tariffs] on, in a way that no president has used it before,” said Thomas Dupree, a leading appellate attorney and former top Justice Department official. Let’s unpack that—while Dupree’s point about unprecedented use rings true, isn’t it about time a president took bold steps to protect American interests against trade imbalances, even if it means testing dusty statutes?
“Context, history, and common sense all support a more modest understanding of that provision — one that leaves the President ample tools to address emergencies but does not delegate Congress's tariffing power wholesale,” argued Benjamin Gutman, Oregon’s Solicitor General. Well, modesty is nice, but when global trade partners play hardball, shouldn’t the president have a strong hand to play, especially when Congress often drags its feet?
