Both conservative and liberal Supreme Court justices expressed skepticism Wednesday over the legality of President Donald Trump’s broad imposition of global tariffs. The court heard almost three hours of oral arguments in a case with significant implications for the expansion of presidential power.
The court’s conservative majority has tended to side with Trump on many cases this year but appeared inclined to break from the president over this tariffs case, the outcome of which could have major impacts on business, consumers and international trade.
U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer defended the Trump administration’s application of tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. The law gives the president the power to impose tariffs and other economic sanctions during national emergencies.
Download the SAN app today to stay up-to-date with Unbiased. Straight Facts™.
Point phone camera here
Justices, however, suggested Trump’s interpretation of the law was overly broad.
“So [President Joe] Biden could have declared a national emergency, and global warming, and then gotten his student forgiveness?” Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked.
Sauer described the law’s language as “capacious.”
Attorney Neal Katyal, representing private businesses that challenged Trump’s tariffs, argued the law does not authorize sweeping tariffs on most U.S. trading partners.
“This is not wartime,” Katyal said. “They are tariffing the entire world in peacetime.”
He said Trump “has torn up the entire tariff architecture. … This is not something that any president has had the power to do in our history.”
