On September 9, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it will take up a critical legal battle over President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs on imports from foreign nations, a cornerstone of his second-term economic agenda. The court’s decision could reshape the president’s ability to impose tariffs without congressional approval, raising questions about the balance of power between the executive branch and Congress.
What’s at Stake?
The cases focus on Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a law designed for national emergencies, to justify imposing tariffs without Congress’s consent. The Constitution explicitly grants Congress the authority to regulate tariffs, but Trump has argued that trade deficits and issues like the flow of fentanyl into the U.S. constitute emergencies that allow him to act unilaterally under IEEPA.
Two sets of tariffs are under scrutiny:
-
Reciprocal Tariffs: These range from a 10% baseline for most countries to 34% for China, depending on the trading partner.
-
Fentanyl-Related Tariffs: A 25% tariff on goods from Canada, China, and Mexico, which Trump claims is necessary due to these countries’ failure to stop fentanyl trafficking.
Other tariffs, such as those on steel and aluminum, are not part of these cases. However, the outcome could affect Trump’s ability to impose additional tariffs in the future.
The Legal Challenges
The Supreme Court is reviewing two cases:
-
First Case: Brought by five businesses, including V.O.S. Selections Inc. (a wine and spirits importer) and Plastic Services and Products, along with 12 states, this case challenges Trump’s use of IEEPA. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled on August 29, 2025, that Trump exceeded his authority, stating that IEEPA does not grant the president unlimited power to impose tariffs of unspecified duration. The Trump administration appealed, arguing that the ruling undermines U.S. trade negotiations and national security.
-
Second Case: Filed by two Illinois-based educational toy companies, Learning Resources and hand2mind, this case saw a federal judge in Washington, D.C., rule in May 2025 that IEEPA does not authorize Trump’s tariffs. The judge’s decision was narrower, blocking the tariffs only for these companies, but the case was fast-tracked to the Supreme Court.
Both cases argue that Trump’s tariffs overstep the legal boundaries of IEEPA and infringe on Congress’s constitutional authority to regulate trade.
Why It Matters
Trump’s tariffs, announced in April 2025 and dubbed “Liberation Day,” have been a bold move to reshape U.S. trade policy. The administration claims they address economic threats like trade deficits and protect national security. For example, Trump has used tariffs to pressure countries like the European Union, the United Kingdom, Japan, and others into negotiating new trade deals.
However, critics, including the businesses and states challenging the tariffs, argue that they raise costs for American consumers and disrupt markets. They contend that IEEPA was never meant to give the president such broad power to impose tariffs without clear limits or congressional oversight. The Federal Circuit’s ruling emphasized that IEEPA lacks specific language or safeguards to support Trump’s actions.
The Supreme Court’s Role
The Supreme Court, with its 6-3 conservative majority, has often ruled in Trump’s favor during his second term. However, some legal experts believe the court may be skeptical of his tariff powers, citing its past rejection of broad executive actions under the “major questions doctrine.” This principle, used to strike down President Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan, suggests that major policy decisions require clear congressional authorization.
The court has set an expedited schedule, with oral arguments planned for the first week of November 2025 and a ruling expected soon after. The tariffs remain in effect for now, as the Federal Circuit paused its decision until October 14, 2025, to allow the appeal process to proceed.
Looking Ahead
The Supreme Court’s decision will have far-reaching implications. If it rules against Trump, it could limit his ability to use IEEPA for tariffs, though he may still pursue other legal avenues to impose them. If the court upholds his authority, it could expand the president’s power to regulate trade independently, potentially reshaping U.S. economic policy for years to come.
This case is one of several Trump-related disputes the Supreme Court may address, including challenges to his immigration policies and efforts to remove members of independent agencies. As the legal battles unfold, the nation watches closely to see how the court will define the limits of presidential power.