Supreme Court May Curb Trump Tariffs, Reinforcing Congressional Authority Over Trade

The U.S. Supreme Court's upcoming decision on President Donald Trump's use of emergency powers to impose sweeping tariffs has taken an unexpected turn, with analysts predicting that the most conservative justices may side with liberal colleagues to strike down the measures. The case, rooted in Trump's invocation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), has sparked intense debate over the boundaries of presidential authority and the constitutional role of Congress in setting trade policy, according to a Fortune analysis.

The dispute centers on Trump's declaration of four national emergencies to justify tariffs ranging from 10% to over 100% on imports from Canada, Mexico, China, and other countries. Critics, including Democratic-led states and small businesses, argue that IEEPA does not authorize revenue-raising tariffs and that trade imbalances do not constitute the "unusual and extraordinary threats" required for such measures, according to LookonChain. Lower courts have ruled the tariffs unlawful, but the fees remain in effect pending the Supreme Court's review, ABC News reported.

During oral arguments on November 5, justices probed the administration's legal rationale, with conservative figures like Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett expressing skepticism. Gorsuch warned that upholding the tariffs could create a "one-way ratchet" of executive power, while Barrett questioned whether a global trade deficit qualifies as an emergency. The administration's lawyer faced further scrutiny when conceding that a future president could use IEEPA to block gasoline-powered car imports under a climate emergency, according to an Economic Times commentary.

Analysts suggest the court may deliver a lopsided 7-2 ruling against Trump, with conservative justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Gorsuch joining liberals in curbing the tariffs. James Lucier of Capital Alpha Partners noted that even if Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh side with the administration, the outcome would still likely restrict presidential power. Such a decision would reinforce the "major questions doctrine," requiring explicit congressional authorization for policies of vast economic significance.

The stakes extend beyond trade policy. If invalidated, Trump's tariffs—accounting for roughly half of 2025's $195 billion in tariff revenue—could face refunds totaling $90 billion, exacerbating the national debt and projected deficits, according to a Fortune report. Economists at Goldman Sachs estimate the trade impact would remain limited, as the government could reimpose tariffs through slower, more transparent processes under other statutes, per a LookonChain analysis. However, trade agreements reliant on IEEPA-based tariffs, including those with India, could unravel.

Trump has framed the case as "life or death" for national security, claiming tariffs shield the U.S. from unfair trade practices. Yet legal scholars and opponents counter that the measures burden American consumers and distort global markets. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called them a "hidden tax," while business groups argue they stifle economic growth.

A ruling against the tariffs would mark a rare check on Trump's second-term agenda and set a precedent for future administrations. As Justice Department lawyers defend the tariffs as essential to foreign policy, the court's decision could redefine the balance of powers between Congress and the executive in economic governance.