With an appeal for the U.S. Supreme Court to preserve the sweeping tariffs that were imposed by his administration, President Donald Trump has escalated his long-running battle over trade policy in America. Following a ruling by a federal appeals court that determined most of these tariffs to be exceeding presidential authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the White House has moved quickly to ask for an expedited review, contending that restoring that ruling will undermine U.S. negotiating leverage and economic stability.
Background of the tariffs dispute
This is, however, an ongoing series of broad import duties dating back to early 2025, all of which have been imposed under IEEPA, which is a 1977 statute under which presidents were supposed to have emergency powers. The two major duties in contention are:
- Trafficking Tariffs-curbing the inflow of fentanyl through Canada, Mexico, and China, and
- Reciprocal Tariffs-setting a basic 10 percent minimum levy (up to 50 percent) on goods from almost all trading partners.
Challenged by a coalition of small businesses and a dozen states, in the Court of International Trade (CIT), the CIT ruled the duties unlawful by late May. The decision was attached by a 7–4 majority from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on August 29, 2025, but stayed the ruling until the middle of October to allow for the Supreme Court to review.
Legal arguments before the High Court
In its petition, the Trump administration maintains that IEEPA empowers the president to “regulate … importation,” an interpretation that encompasses imposition of import duties as one of the standard modes of regulation. Solicitor General D. John Sauer contended that failure of the Supreme Court to intervene immediately would “unilaterally disarm the United States and allow other nations to hold America’s economy hostage to their retaliatory trade policies”.
Their positions, led by the Liberty Justice Center, are that tariffs are purely congressional prerogatives and that IEEPA never authorized them to adopt blanket authority over tariffs. Emergency tariffs are “big-time damaging” to small businesses and threaten their survival, said Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel for the challengers.
The administration denies the applicability of the doctrine concerning “major questions”, asserting that the statute’s broad language here must clearly empower the president under an emergency context, and that national security and foreign policy exceptions preclude such operations here.
Financial and economic stakes
The case carries enormous fiscal implications. The Supreme Court’s defeat could cut U.S. effective tariff rates from averages well above 16.3% to less than half, and refunds of tens of billions of dollars may have to be collected on moneys acquired since January 2025. So far, tariffs based upon IEEPA have generated above $210 billion for Treasury for the 2025 fiscal year, adding anxieties over federal budgets and trade negotiations in the case of bad rulings.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent indicated that, as a result of the appeals court decision, “the administration has been significantly stripped of its negotiating leverage,” endangering framework agreements with key partners and putting at risk “an economic and foreign-policy crisis” if the imposed duties were rescinded.
Expedited schedule and timeline
According to its filing, the administration has asked the Supreme Court to decide whether to grant review by September 10, with oral arguments planned for early November—much earlier than the usual time frame. If the court agrees, a ruling could be delivered before the end of the year, saving the appellants from having the mid-October expiration of their stay. The fast-forward schedule has been agreed by the challengers.
Potential implications of the ruling
A Supreme Court endorsement would institutionalize broad presidential tariff authority to be exercised in the course of emergency powers, which would then recast the balance between executive and legislative trade prerogatives. It might also embolden future administrations to claim IEEPA authority for economic implements that should traditionally be reserved for Congress.
Conversely, a ruling against the administration would consolidate congressional control over tariff policy, narrow executive emergency powers, and trigger complex refunding procedures for billions in collected duties. This would also undermine trade deals in the emerging negotiations with the European Union and Japan and would undo most of the early trade breakthroughs made this year with other major economies.
As the justices deliberate on whether or not to hear the case, the stakes could hardly be higher: the outcome will decide not only the fate of President Trump’s signature economic initiative but also the constitutional allocation of tariff-making authority. With the appeal set to be decided in early November, Washington braces for a landmark ruling.
Read more: Bad news for Trump’s tariffs as court rules against President’s policy
