President Donald Trump’s administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday to quickly decide whether the president may impose broad import tariffs under an emergency powers statute, escalating a high-stakes legal battle that could force refunds of billions in duties and reshape U.S. trade policy.
In a petition filed electronically late Wednesday, Solicitor General D. John Sauer asked the justices to reverse a 7-4 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that held most of the tariffs were an unlawful exercise of power under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The appeals court concluded last week that setting levies is a core congressional power and that the tariffs did not fall within the president’s mandate under the statute; the court stayed its judgment temporarily to allow the administration to seek review.
The administration invoked IEEPA after Trump declared an economic emergency in April, saying a sustained trade imbalance had undermined domestic manufacturing and posed risks to national security. The petition asks the Supreme Court to take the case, known as Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, and to set argument dates in early November, arguing that the appellate ruling has created “a pall of uncertainty” that jeopardizes ongoing foreign negotiations and the administration’s broader economic agenda.
Two federal courts and a total of 10 federal judges have concluded that the tariffs exceeded the president’s statutory authority, according to court filings and news reports. If the Supreme Court ultimately upholds the appeals court decision, the ruling could require the federal government to refund billions of dollars collected in tariffs since the emergency declaration.
Legal analysts have flagged a tension in the administration’s petition. The document opens with detailed factual assertions intended to support the president’s authority, but some observers say those same assertions, if credited by the justices, could undercut the administration’s legal theory and bolster arguments that the measures fall into a category of issues historically reserved for Congress. Vox reported that portions of the petition could be read as conceding limits that would compel a ruling against the tariffs, a point legal commentators have debated.
The case also raises questions about how the Supreme Court will apply the so-called "major questions doctrine," a legal approach that conservative justices have used in recent years to reject agency actions they deemed to implicate vast economic and political questions without clear congressional authorization. That doctrine figured prominently in several decisions striking down regulatory steps taken during the Biden administration; whether the Court will apply the same framework to a Republican president’s assertion of unilateral authority is a central, unresolved issue.
The Federal Circuit’s divided opinion and the administration’s fast-track petition come as part of a broader pattern of litigation over executive power in trade and national security. The Trump administration has repeatedly appealed adverse rulings to the Supreme Court, which it helped shape by naming three justices. The high court’s decision on whether to hear the case and, if so, how quickly to schedule arguments will determine the immediate future of the tariffs and could set a precedent on the scope of presidential authority under IEEPA.
If the Supreme Court declines review, the Federal Circuit’s judgment would stand and most of the tariffs could be struck down, subject to any further proceedings. If the justices take the case and ultimately rule for the administration, it would affirm a broad view of presidential power to impose import duties under an emergency statute. Either outcome would carry significant implications for U.S. trade policy and for the separation of powers between the White House and Congress.
The petition was expected to be formally docketed on Thursday. The parties are likely to press for an expedited schedule given the economic stakes and the administration’s request for early-November arguments, though the justices set their own calendar and have discretion over whether to intervene and on what timetable.