Skeptical Supreme Court Questions the Trump Administration Over Tariff Powers

The Trump administration attempted to defend its use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act before the Supreme Court on Wednesday — sometimes by contradicting the president.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer faced a slew of skeptical inquiries from the justices who seemed to take issue with many of the Trump administration’s arguments, including that the president has broad authority to respond to international emergencies, Congress delegated the presidency this power, and tariffs are not tax.

Since the Constitution gives Congress the power to tax, the claim that tariffs are not a tax was central to Sauer’s argument, despite the fact that the president has framed them as revenue-raising.

“We don’t contend that what’s being exercised here is the power to tax,” Sauer said. “It’s the power to regulate foreign commerce. These are regulatory tariffs. They are not revenue raising tariffs.”

President Donald Trump regularly says that tariffs are making the country richer. And earlier this year, the White House floated using tariffs as a revenue raiser to offset the cost of the One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor made clear that she didn’t buy Sauer’s argument on tariffs versus taxes.

“You say tariffs are not taxes, but that’s exactly what they are,” she said. “They’re generating money from American citizens, revenue.”

How the justices decide the case will have major implications not just for Trump’s agenda but for how much unilateral power presidents have to regulate commerce. Although the Trump administration has other options to enact his tariff agenda if use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act is deemed illegal, none of them are as powerful as that law as the Trump administration has chosen to interpret it.

Justice Neil Gorsuch leaned heavily into the question of congressional authority. He seemed to take issue with the fact that it would be difficult for Congress to reclaim that authority should the Supreme Court give the Trump administration what it was asking for.

“Congress, as a practical matter, can’t get this power back once it’s handed it over to the president. It’s a one way ratchet toward the gradual but continual accretion of power in the executive branch and away from the people’s elected representatives,” he argued.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett seemed skeptical of the scope of the reciprocal tariffs Trump has placed on dozens of countries, allies and trading partners alike.

“Is it your contention that every country needed to be tariffed because of threats to the defense and industrial base? I mean, Spain, France? I mean, I could see it with some countries, but explain to me why as many countries needed to be subject to the reciprocal tariff policy as are,” she asked.

The administration seemed to be anticipating some of the skepticism from the court, particularly with regard to whether the tariffs could be considered a tax. Phillip Magness, a senior fellow at the Independent Institute, told NOTUS ahead of the hearing that “earlier court filings in the lower courts basically admitted that it was indeed a tax and that it’s bringing in trillions of dollars in revenue.”

“It’s kind of strange to see them pivot, but that told me they’re reading the court very the same way that opponents’ appearances are reading it and trying to find an angle that the judges will take to,” he said.

The court heard arguments against Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act from attorney Neal Katyal, who represented small businesses that sued to block the tariffs. He argued that tariffs are, in fact, a tax, and that the Trump administration was exceeding the authority Congress intended to give to the executive branch when it passed the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

“It’s simply implausible that in enacting IEEPA, Congress handed the president the power to overhaul the entire tariff system and the American economy in the process, allowing him to set and reset tariffs on any and every product from any and every country at any and all times,” Katyal said.

“And as Justices Gorsuch and Barrett just said, this is a one-way ratchet,” he continued. “We will never get this power back if the government wins this case. What president wouldn’t veto legislation to rein this power in and pull out the tariff power?”

The court also heard from a coalition of 12 states including New York, Illinois and Vermont that sued the Trump administration on similar grounds.

The Supreme Court has until the end of its term next summer to make a decision, but the case has so far been on an expedited track — some expect a decision before the end of the year.

This story has been corrected to remove a quote misattributed to Chief Justice John Roberts.