The US Supreme Court (SC) has agreed to decide whether president Donald Trump acted lawfully when he invoked emergency powers to impose sweeping global tariffs, setting the stage for a landmark battle over presidential authority and the future of America’s trade policy, say media reports.
The SC moved with unusual speed, announcing on Tuesday that it would hear oral arguments in the first week of November, barely a month into its new term that begins on 6 October 2025. The justices’ decision to fast-track the case underscores its scale: trillions of dollars in customs duties are at stake over the next decade, alongside the limits of executive power.
The case arises from an August ruling by the US court of appeals for the federal circuit which found that president Trump exceeded his authority under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). That law, designed to address 'unusual and extraordinary threats' from abroad, has historically been used to freeze assets and impose sanctions—not to levy tariffs.
By a 7-4 decision, the appeals court ruled that the US Constitution leaves the power to impose tariffs squarely with Congress. It added that president Trump’s expansive interpretation of IEEPA clashed with the Supreme Court’s 'major questions' doctrine, which requires Congress to speak clearly when delegating power of vast economic and political significance.
The tariffs remain in place pending appeal, even though multiple lower courts, including the US court of international trade, have ruled against them.
The challenges were filed by a group of small businesses, ranging from a New York wine importer to a Pennsylvania fishing retailer, alongside 12 states, mostly Democrat-led, including New York, Illinois and Colorado. Another case was filed by a family-owned toy company, Learning Resources.
Critics argue that president Trump’s use of IEEPA nearly bankrupted small firms that relied on affordable imports. Jeffrey Schwab, a lawyer for the Liberty Justice Center representing the businesses, told Reuters that “Congress, not the president, has the constitutional power to impose tariffs.” The Supreme Court will rein in what challengers see as an abuse of executive power, he added.
The Trump administration has defended the tariffs as a necessary tool to protect national security and reduce the trade deficit. It argued that the IEEPA’s broad language gives the president authority to regulate imports during emergencies, including using tariffs to curb the flow of fentanyl and to exert pressure on foreign governments.
White House spokesperson says president Trump had acted lawfully: “The president used the tariff powers granted to him by Congress to safeguard national security and the economy. We look forward to ultimate victory at the Supreme Court.”
The department of justice (DoJ) warned that stripping president Trump of unilateral tariff power would leave the US vulnerable to retaliation and 'thrust America back to the brink of economic catastrophe'.
President Trump, who returned to the White House in January, has made tariffs central to his foreign and economic policy, using them to renegotiate trade deals and extract concessions. Revenue from tariffs reached US$159bn (billion) by late-August, more than double the previous year, according to official figures.
The non-partisan congressional budget office (CBO) has estimated that the increased duties could reduce the US national deficit by US$4tn (trillion) over the next decade. But if the Supreme Court rules against president Trump, the government may have to refund billions collected through the import taxes. Ongoing trade negotiations with countries such as India, the UK and Japan could also be disrupted.
The case marks one of the most consequential tests of presidential power in recent memory. Legal experts say it could reshape the balance of authority between Congress and the executive branch.
With three of the court’s conservative justices appointed by president Trump, the outcome remains uncertain. The decision will determine not only the fate of his tariffs but also how far a president can go in using emergency powers to shape the nation’s economic destiny.
