Trump asks Supreme Court to save his emergency tariffs

President Donald Trump has urgently appealed to the Supreme Court to reverse a federal appeals court decision that invalidated his emergency tariffs, arguing that the ruling threatens his trade agenda and national economic interests. The Trump administration filed the appeal on September 3, 2025, following a 7-4 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which found that the president overstepped his authority by using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping tariffs. The court emphasized that the power to tax, including tariffs, is constitutionally vested in Congress, not the executive branch. Trump’s tariffs, first announced in April 2025 and later expanded, were justified under declared national emergencies aimed at addressing trade imbalances and security threats. These measures have generated over $210 billion in revenue but have also sparked legal challenges from small businesses and several states, who argue that the tariffs are unlawful and damaging to the economy. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing the administration, requested the Supreme Court to expedite the case, with arguments potentially scheduled for early November. He warned that the lower court’s decision casts uncertainty on ongoing foreign negotiations and could undermine trade deals that Trump has secured using tariff threats. Plaintiffs in the case, including wine importer VOS Selections and represented by the Liberty Justice Center, contend that the tariffs are inflicting severe harm on small businesses and jeopardizing their survival. They hope for a swift resolution to provide relief and clarity. If the Supreme Court upholds the appeals court ruling, the U.S. government may be required to refund collected tariff revenues, posing a significant financial blow. Additionally, Trump’s leverage in trade negotiations could be diminished, as other countries might seek more favorable terms knowing his reduced authority. Despite this challenge, Trump retains other legal avenues to impose tariffs, such as under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, which allows tariffs on national security grounds but requires prior investigations and is more limited in scope. However, these methods lack the speed and flexibility that IEEPA provided. The case highlights ongoing debates about executive power and the major questions doctrine, which the Supreme Court has previously used to curb presidential actions lacking explicit congressional approval. The outcome will not only affect current trade policies but also set precedents for future administrations, shaping the balance of power between branches of government and influencing global economic relations.