The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to fast-track consideration of President Donald Trump’s broad tariff program, scheduling oral arguments for November and keeping the contested import taxes in place while the case proceeds.
The high court accepted an appeal from the Trump administration after lower courts concluded that most of the tariffs were imposed unlawfully. The expedited timetable — unusually quick by the court’s standards — was requested by the administration and agreed to by the small businesses and states that sued, who say the levies have threatened bankruptcy for some firms.
The litigation centers on the government’s invocation of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, which the administration says authorizes the president to regulate imports during a national emergency. Two lower courts concluded that the president lacked authority to impose most of the levies under that statute; a divided U.S. Court of Appeals left the tariffs in place, and four of its judges concluded IEEPA permitted such regulation in emergency circumstances.
Attorney Jeffrey Schwab of the Liberty Justice Center, representing some of the challengers, said in court filings, "Congress, not the President alone, has the power to impose tariffs." The Trump administration countered that striking down the tariffs would jeopardize ongoing trade negotiations and other national priorities, arguing the law authorizes necessary executive action and warning the country could be placed on "the brink of economic catastrophe." Solicitor General D. John Sauer has told the court that lower-court rulings are already affecting U.S. negotiating leverage.
The case covers two sets of import taxes the president justified by declaring a national emergency: the tariffs announced in April and those issued in February that target imports from Canada, China and Mexico. It does not involve separate levies on foreign steel, aluminum and autos, nor does it concern tariffs on China from Trump’s first term that were retained by the Biden administration.
Administration officials have also warned that if the Supreme Court were to invalidate the tariffs, the U.S. Treasury could be required to refund some of the roughly $159 billion in tariff revenue collected by late August, a sum more than double receipts at the same point a year earlier. The government has argued that revoking the measures could hinder efforts to curb fentanyl flows and to pressure Russia over its war in Ukraine.
Legal scholars and advocates point to a long-running tension between presidential use of emergency economic authority and Congress’s constitutional power to levy tariffs. In recent decades, lawmakers have delegated some authority to the executive branch, creating the statutory space Trump has used to expand import restrictions. Critics say the delegation is overly broad; supporters contend swift executive action is sometimes necessary in international economic crises.
The Supreme Court, which includes three justices nominated by Trump in his first term, has in recent years shown reluctance to curtail some assertions of presidential power. The November argument will give the justices an opportunity to clarify the scope of IEEPA and the extent to which a president may unilaterally impose trade barriers without explicit congressional approval.
After oral arguments, the court will take additional time to deliberate and issue a decision. The tariffs will remain in force until the justices rule, keeping in place measures that have already reshaped certain trade relationships and stirred debate about their economic and diplomatic effects.