Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in President Donald Trump’s tariff case.
Nobody likes it: Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in President Donald Trump’s tariff case. Trump has invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) as legal justification for his tariffs, imposed in some form on nearly all imports from nearly all countries.
The « emergency » that grants him such economic powers, in Trump’s telling, is either the trafficking of fentanyl into the U.S. (in the case of the tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China) or, more confusingly, the (rather normal) existence of trade deficits.
« Reasonable people might disagree with the notion that any of that should be considered an emergency », writes Reason’s Eric Boehm. But legally, some of these things are « besides the point » as the real question is whether the executive « has broad authority under IEEPA to declare any ’emergency’ that he sees fit » and « whether the law allows tariffs to be imposed once an emergency has been declared. »
The justices did not seem sympathetic to the arguments put forth by Trump’s team.
« Could the president impose a 50 percent tariff on gas-powered cars and auto parts to deal with the ‘unusual and extraordinary’ threat…of climate change? » asked Justice Neil Gorsuch. « It’s very likely that could be done », responded Solicitor General D. John Sauer, on behalf of the administration. « I think that has to be the logic of your view », responded Gorsuch. (More from Boehm here.)
Sauer is really leaning in on the « tariffs are regulatory, not revenue » argument.
Again, this is a disastrous strategy. That doctrine is long settled & it says, quite clearly, that tariffs are taxes.
Phil Magness (@PhilWMagness) November 5, 2025
Much of yesterday’s interrogation centered around whether the IEEPA grants the president the power to « regulate », « block », « nullify », « restrict », « modify », but not the power to impose taxes—which is what tariffs are.
