The Day of Reckoning - The Supreme Court Reviews Trump’s Tariffs, and the Ground Is Shaking

It was 10 a.m. in Washington when the Supreme Court session began. The case before the highest court of the United States that day could redefine the limits of presidential power. It concerns the tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump in the spring – a measure with which he seeks to reorder international trade, enacted under the “International Emergency Economic Powers Act” (IEEPA) of 1977. The central question is whether a president may impose tariffs without congressional approval if he declares an economic emergency.

Trump himself was not present. He had publicly considered attending the hearing but decided against it over the weekend. “It’s not about me, it’s about our country,” he said on Sunday. Whoever believes that, bless them. Instead, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent sat in the audience while Trump’s top attorney, Solicitor General D. John Sauer, stood at the lectern. Sauer defended the tariffs as lawful, citing the president’s foreign policy authority.

Under the post-pandemic procedure, Justice Clarence Thomas, 77 years old and the court’s longest-serving member, began with the first questions. After that, the remaining justices followed in order of seniority, led by Chief Justice John Roberts. Thomas addressed the core issue: whether Trump’s invocation of the IEEPA, a law designed for international crises, also permits the imposition of import tariffs. Sauer argued that tariffs are “in many ways the classic and natural form” of regulating the import of goods. But several justices showed skepticism.

Under the post-pandemic procedure, Justice Clarence Thomas, 77 years old and the court’s longest-serving member, began with the first questions. After that, the remaining justices followed in order of seniority, led by Chief Justice John Roberts. Thomas addressed the core issue: whether Trump’s invocation of the IEEPA, a law designed for international crises, also permits the imposition of import tariffs. Sauer argued that tariffs are “in many ways the classic and natural form” of regulating the import of goods. But several justices showed skepticism.

Under the post-pandemic procedure, Justice Clarence Thomas, 77 years old and the court’s longest-serving member, began with the first questions. After that, the remaining justices followed in order of seniority, led by Chief Justice John Roberts. Thomas addressed the core issue: whether Trump’s invocation of the IEEPA, a law designed for international crises, also permits the imposition of import tariffs. Sauer argued that tariffs are “in many ways the classic and natural form” of regulating the import of goods. But several justices showed skepticism.

ustice Amy Coney Barrett, appointed by Trump himself, also pressed the issue. “Does the word ‘regulate’ automatically include tariffs?” Sauer said yes, but Barrett remained cautious. She noted that “regulate” in the legal sense does not necessarily mean “to tax.” Neal Katyal, a former acting Solicitor General under President Obama, represents small businesses challenging the tariffs. In response to a question from Thomas, he explained the difference between embargoes and tariffs: “An embargo stops the shipment – a tariff starts the tax bill.” The courtroom laughed briefly, but Katyal stayed focused. The president, he said, may direct trade policy, but he may not raise revenue for the state unless Congress explicitly authorizes it.

Audio: Solicitor General D. John Sauer, Trump’s top attorney before the Supreme Court, is defending the tariffs. Why so many figures in Trump’s orbit behave as if they were related to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. remains a remarkable phenomenon. Here is a current live recording from the hearing – to give everyone a better sense of what proceedings at the Supreme Court actually look like. - Justice Sonia Sotomayor directly confronted Sauer with Trump’s own rhetoric. The president had repeatedly boasted that his tariffs brought billions into the Treasury. “You want to say tariffs aren’t taxes – but they are,” she said. Sauer tried to shift the focus to the “regulation of trade,” but the objection lingered.

The discussion turned to whether a ruling against Trump could lead to refunds for importers. Katyal acknowledged that it would be complicated. The Treasury had already collected around 90 billion dollars in tariff revenue. Still, there were precedents: in the 1990s, the court struck down a harbor maintenance fee on exports as unconstitutional, after which a refund system was established.

After two hours, attention turned to Gutman, who spoke for the states. He emphasized that while the president may suspend trade under IEEPA, he cannot create new sources of revenue. “The difference lies in the nature of the power,” he said. “Taxation is not an instrument of foreign policy.” Toward the end, Roberts asked about the so-called “major questions doctrine” – the principle that Congress must speak clearly when delegating authority on matters of “vast economic and political significance.” The court had already applied this doctrine against President Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan. “Perhaps it applies here,” Roberts said. Should he rely on that reasoning, Trump’s policy would be legally untenable.

At 12:36 p.m., the session ended after more than two and a half hours. Sauer briefly summarized his position. Then Roberts spoke the formal phrase that closes every argument at the Supreme Court: “The case is submitted.” The case was submitted. The justices then withdrew to their private conference, where they will take a preliminary vote – an internal assessment that will lead to a final decision weeks or months later. Observers in the courtroom largely agreed: the majority of the justices appeared skeptical of the administration. Roberts, Gorsuch, and Barrett could be the decisive votes.

Much is at stake for Trump. Should the court rule against him, he would lose not only a central economic policy tool but also the legal foundation of his trade authority. It would be a ruling that directly limits his power – and a signal that even a president who stretches emergency laws to their limits remains bound by the Constitution.