The Supreme Court is set to rule on the legality of President Trump's use of emergency powers to impose sweeping tariffs on nearly all US trading partners—a case that could redefine the limits of presidential authority. The justices, who have often allowed Trump's policies to proceed while legal battles continue, must now decide whether to uphold or curb a key economic strategy of his administration, the New York Times reports. The outcome could ripple across the global economy and affect American businesses and consumers. The court will hear the case Wednesday. Trump appealed to the top court after lower courts found that he had overstepped his authority with most of his tariffs.
Trump argues that the ability to quickly enact tariffs is essential to national security and economic stability. His administration claims a 1977 law provides presidents broad latitude to "regulate" imports during emergencies, though critics note the law does not explicitly mention tariffs or taxes. Small businesses challenging the tariffs say the measures were unlawful, damaging their bottom lines and leading to layoffs. They contend that allowing the president such sweeping power to tax could set a dangerous precedent.
- In a Truth Social post Sunday, Trump said it is one of the most important cases in American history and "if we lose, our Country could be reduced to almost Third World status." He said he "will not be going to the Court on Wednesday in that I do not want to distract from the importance of this Decision."
Legal experts say the case is finely balanced, with the court weighing not just the specific tariff policy, but broader questions about the scope of executive power, the Times reports. The conservative legal community itself is divided, with some warning that Congress never intended to give the president such wide authority to impose tariffs unilaterally. The case also tests legal doctrines favored by conservatives, such as the "major questions doctrine," which requires clear congressional approval for significant executive actions, and the "nondelegation doctrine," which bars Congress from handing over its core powers to the president.
story continues below
Plaintiffs who spoke to CNN said the case was about an "asphyxiating tax," not national politics. "I'm not targeting Mr. Trump because I'm not a politician," said Rick Woldenberg, CEO of educational toy maker Learning Resources. "I'm a taxpayer who's been hit with an unlawful tax." Observers, however, say the justices will doubtless be aware that Trump will take defeat in the case personally, the Times reports. "You can't help but think that that's going to be hovering over the decision-making process in this case," says Donald B. Verrilli Jr., solicitor general during the Obama administration.
,
uBlock 
,
and
Ghostery 
)
