The U.S. Supreme Court heard nearly three hours of oral arguments Wednesday in a case that could reshape the scope of presidential power over trade. The justices considered whether President Donald Trump could impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a law that grants the executive branch broad authority during national emergencies. The case centers on Trump’s use of this statute to justify tariffs he enacted while in office, which critics say exceeded the authority granted to him by Congress.
The outcome could influence not just Trump’s trade agenda during his current term, but also how presidents of either party can wield emergency powers in the future. The justices’ questioning suggested that the decision is unlikely to fall strictly along ideological lines, and that some members of the Court’s conservative majority are skeptical of the administration’s position. As the justices now move behind closed doors to draft an opinion, several themes emerged clearly from the day’s proceedings.
Conservative Majority Shows Divisions
One of the most notable features of the argument was the visible divide among the Court’s conservatives. Despite holding a 6–3 majority, conservative justices did not unite in defending expansive presidential power. Instead, three conservative justices posed some of the most pointed challenges to the government’s argument.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned whether the phrase “regulate importation,” a central element of Trump’s justification under IEEPA, has ever previously been interpreted as granting authority to impose tariffs. She asked whether there is “any other place” in the law or “any other time in history” where the phrase has been used in that way.
Chief Justice John Roberts noted that the statute invoked to justify the tariffs had never before been used for that purpose. “No one has argued that it does until this particular case,” he said, questioning whether such an unprecedented interpretation aligned with congressional intent.
Justice Neil Gorsuch also raised broader constitutional implications, pressing the administration’s attorney, Solicitor General D. John Sauer, on whether the logic of the government’s position would allow Congress to abdicate large portions of its authority. “What would prohibit Congress from just abdicating all responsibility to regulate foreign commerce — for that matter, to declare war — to the president?” Gorsuch asked. When Sauer responded, “We don’t contend he could do that,” Gorsuch immediately followed with, “Why not?”
These exchanges indicated that concerns about executive overreach resonated strongly across ideological lines, setting the stage for a potential coalition decision that crosses the Court’s usual alignments.
The Role of the “Major Questions” Doctrine
The hearing also focused heavily on the “major questions” doctrine — a judicial principle holding that if the executive branch takes actions with sweeping economic or political consequences, it must point to clear authorization from Congress. In recent years, the conservative majority has applied this doctrine to rein in executive actions, including the Biden administration’s student loan cancellation program.
Several justices raised the doctrine in discussing Trump’s tariffs. Roberts pointed out that Trump’s interpretation of emergency powers would allow tariffs on “any product, from any country, in any amount, for any length of time,” and asked the government to address why that would not trigger the major questions doctrine. “It seems that it might be directly applicable,” Roberts said.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor introduced the topic earlier in the hearing, questioning whether Biden could have justified his own student loan forgiveness plan simply by invoking a national emergency, if Trump’s reading of IEEPA were to stand.
The administration, however, argued the doctrine should not apply in this context. Sauer told Sotomayor that he believed the Court had “never applied the major questions doctrine in the foreign policy context,” suggesting that matters touching on national security require more deference to the executive.
The justices’ engagement with the doctrine signaled that its reach is still evolving — and that it could now be applied in a way that affects the sitting Republican president who has often supported strong executive authority.
Concerns About Endless Emergencies
Another recurring theme was the scope and permanence of national emergency declarations. Under IEEPA, emergency authority applies only when there is an “unusual and extraordinary threat” originating outside the United States. Trump cited issues such as fentanyl imports and trade imbalances as such threats.
This prompted several hypothetical scenarios from the justices, who questioned whether such reasoning could open the door to almost limitless tariff authority. Justice Elena Kagan remarked on the frequency and breadth of recent emergency declarations, saying that “we’re in emergencies everything all the time about, like, half the world.”
Gorsuch suggested a scenario in which a president might impose a 50% tariff on gasoline-powered vehicles to address climate change, asking whether the government’s interpretation would allow such a move. Sauer acknowledged that it “very likely” could. Gorsuch replied that this would logically follow from the administration’s position.
Other justices raised similar concerns, offering examples ranging from tariffs imposed to prevent war to tariffs used as leverage to secure the release of American hostages abroad. These discussions reflected a shared concern that accepting Trump’s interpretation could allow any future president to invoke emergencies for political or economic aims.
“A One-Way Ratchet” on Executive Power
A key worry for several justices was whether Congress could realistically reclaim delegated authority once it has been granted to the president. Because the president can veto legislation that would roll back executive powers, and because overriding a veto requires a two-thirds vote, shifting power back to Congress could be extremely difficult.
Gorsuch summarized this concern, calling the shift in power “a one-way ratchet toward the gradual but continual accretion of power in the executive branch and away from the people’s elected representatives.”
Barrett also noted that if the Court upholds Trump’s interpretation, Congress may find it difficult to reverse. “If Congress said, ‘Whoa, we don’t like that. That gives a president too much authority under IEEPA,’ it’s going to have a very hard time pulling the tariff power out of IEEPA,” she said.
Neal Katyal, who represented the small businesses challenging the tariffs, echoed the concern, stating that “We will never get this power back if the government wins this case,” and questioned whether any president would consent to limiting their own authority.
A Full Courtroom and Unusual Audience
While the legal stakes were high, the atmosphere in the courtroom was often lighter than in other recent major arguments. The session included several moments of laughter, and the dynamic among the justices appeared more relaxed. At one point, Sotomayor refrained from asking a question, remarking that Justice Brett Kavanaugh would cover it, to which Kavanaugh later responded with thanks for the “kind assist.”
The hearing drew a notable audience, including cabinet officials such as Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who had publicly expressed interest in attending. Several lawmakers were present, including Senators Ed Markey and Amy Klobuchar. CEOs of affected small businesses also attended, with one plaintiff’s daughter arriving in line at 3:30 a.m. to secure a seat.
An unexpected attendee was comedian John Mulaney, seated toward the back. Katyal has previously stated he is collaborating with Mulaney on a project involving the Supreme Court.
What Comes Next
The justices will now deliberate in private, with a ruling expected later this term. The outcome could redefine the balance of authority between Congress and the presidency, particularly in matters involving trade and foreign policy. It could also influence how Trump continues to use emergency powers while in office.
