The US Supreme Court convened in Washington, D.C. this Monday to hear a pivotal case challenging the legality of tariffs imposed by former President Donald Trump on nearly all global imports. The case centers on whether Trump had the statutory authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to enact these tariffs via executive order.
The tariffs, introduced in February 2025, have been a subject of intense legal scrutiny and political debate. The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit struck down most of these tariffs in August 2025, ruling that the IEEPA does not explicitly authorize the president to impose tariffs, which are a form of tax. This ruling was met with strong criticism from Trump, who warned that invalidating the tariffs would be disastrous for the country.
In its petition to the Supreme Court, the Trump administration argued that the tariffs promote peace and unprecedented economic prosperity, asserting that they restore America's respect and standing globally. However, the Supreme Court's review focuses strictly on the legal question of statutory interpretation, not the policy merits of the tariffs.
Legal experts note that the case involves the application of textualism, a judicial philosophy favored by conservative justices, which emphasizes interpreting statutes based on their plain language. The IEEPA authorizes the president to regulate importation to address unusual threats but does not mention tariffs explicitly. Other statutes that grant tariff authority do so clearly and explicitly, a point emphasized by the Federal Circuit.
Additionally, the case implicates the 'major questions' doctrine, which requires clear congressional authorization for executive actions of vast economic and political significance. The Federal Circuit found that imposing tariffs of unlimited duration on nearly all imports qualifies as such a major question, and no clear authorization exists in the IEEPA.
The Supreme Court's conservative majority has previously applied the major questions doctrine to strike down significant regulatory actions by the Biden administration, reinforcing the importance of clear congressional mandates. However, the Trump administration contends that this doctrine should not apply in the context of national security and foreign policy.
The constitutional debate also references Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution, which grants Congress the power to lay and collect taxes and regulate commerce with foreign nations, suggesting that tariff authority resides with Congress, not the president.
As of this Tuesday, September 16, 2025, legal experts remain divided on how the Supreme Court will rule. The decision will have far-reaching implications for executive power, statutory interpretation, and US trade policy.
Source: Law.com, published Monday, September 15, 2025; SCOTUSblog, published Monday, September 15, 2025.
