Supreme Court justices grill lawyer for Trump on legality of tariffs as US trade war enters critical phase.
The US Solicitor General's office is facing tough scrutiny from a six-member conservative majority and three liberal justices of the Supreme Court over President Donald Trump's use of emergency powers to impose sweeping tariffs, a move that has significant implications for global trade and the US economy.
In a hearing on Wednesday, senior officials in the administration were grilled by conservative Chief Justice John Roberts and liberal Justice Elena Kagan about whether Mr. Trump had overstepped his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs with no clear limit or time frame.
The use of IEEPA for this purpose is a first for a US president and comes as tensions between Washington and Beijing, Ottawa, and other trading partners reach a boiling point. The Trump administration has imposed over $90 billion in tariffs on imported goods so far, prompting widespread criticism from the business community, Democrats, and some Republicans.
Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned whether Mr. Sauer's interpretation of IEEPA was based on an "unusual" or 'extraordinary threat', which is required by law to trigger use of the emergency powers provision. When asked how this applied to tariffs, she noted that Congress has traditionally granted power to regulate foreign commerce to Congress.
Meanwhile, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent stated if the Supreme Court rules against Trump's interpretation of IEEPA, his administration would switch to other laws or provisions that could support his tariffs. The use of these laws remains in place as arguments are heard.
In questioning US Solicitor General John Sauer, liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson suggested the emergency powers provision under IEEPA was intended to limit presidential authority rather than expand it. Liberal Justice Elena Kagan pressed on whether Mr. Trump's actions can be justified under his inherent constitutional powers related to tariffs and regulation of foreign commerce.
Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch also challenged Sauer, suggesting that the use of such executive power could lead to undermining the US Constitution's separation of powers between its legislative and executive branches.
The US Solicitor General's office is facing tough scrutiny from a six-member conservative majority and three liberal justices of the Supreme Court over President Donald Trump's use of emergency powers to impose sweeping tariffs, a move that has significant implications for global trade and the US economy.
In a hearing on Wednesday, senior officials in the administration were grilled by conservative Chief Justice John Roberts and liberal Justice Elena Kagan about whether Mr. Trump had overstepped his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs with no clear limit or time frame.
The use of IEEPA for this purpose is a first for a US president and comes as tensions between Washington and Beijing, Ottawa, and other trading partners reach a boiling point. The Trump administration has imposed over $90 billion in tariffs on imported goods so far, prompting widespread criticism from the business community, Democrats, and some Republicans.
Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned whether Mr. Sauer's interpretation of IEEPA was based on an "unusual" or 'extraordinary threat', which is required by law to trigger use of the emergency powers provision. When asked how this applied to tariffs, she noted that Congress has traditionally granted power to regulate foreign commerce to Congress.
Meanwhile, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent stated if the Supreme Court rules against Trump's interpretation of IEEPA, his administration would switch to other laws or provisions that could support his tariffs. The use of these laws remains in place as arguments are heard.
In questioning US Solicitor General John Sauer, liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson suggested the emergency powers provision under IEEPA was intended to limit presidential authority rather than expand it. Liberal Justice Elena Kagan pressed on whether Mr. Trump's actions can be justified under his inherent constitutional powers related to tariffs and regulation of foreign commerce.
Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch also challenged Sauer, suggesting that the use of such executive power could lead to undermining the US Constitution's separation of powers between its legislative and executive branches.
... like how can one guy just impose tariffs on other countries without Congress saying yay or nay first? It seems kinda fishy to me that Trump is using emergency powers for something as big as trade, which could lead to a huge mess in the global economy. What if he oversteps his authority and it sets a bad precedent for future presidents? 
And let's be real, $90 billion in tariffs is a BIG deal 
. Conservative justices are questioning if Mr. Trump overstepped his authority 
, and it's hard to see how he wouldn't have, considering Congress traditionally regulates foreign commerce to itself 
. The use of emergency powers for tariffs is super uncharted territory 
, and the Supreme Court is keeping a close eye on this 
. If they rule against Trump's interpretation, the admin might switch to other laws or provisions, but it's hard to see how that would make up for the harm already done 
.
I'm watching from here and it seems like everyone's having a serious debate about whether Trump went too far with these tariffs 
. 
. Even though Trump's got a lot of power, the Constitution's gotta be respected too 
. It's like, yeah, he can regulate trade, but there are limits to what an executive can do without Congress agreeing on it 
.
. The thing is, if he gets off scot-free, it sets a bad precedent for future presidents. And if the court rules against him, it could be a big win for Democrats and the business community.
. The business community, Democrats, and even some Republicans are all against it, so it's not like there's widespread support for this move... unless you're a fan of tariffs, that is 
. And now the court is stepping in to try and figure it out... hopefully they can get some clarity on this.
.
... Trump using emergency powers for tariffs without Congress' explicit approval? That sounds like a major overreach to me, especially with global trade at stake 
. If he thinks he can just bypass Congress and impose these tariffs through executive orders, that's not only a threat to democracy but also sets a bad precedent for future presidencies 
. What if this gets set in stone? Would other countries start following suit, leading to an all-out trade war?