The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will review the legality of the sprawling tariffs President Trump imposed in an April executive order, a day the president declared "liberation day."
Since then the government estimates it has collected nearly a trillion dollars in tariffs from U.S. and foreign businesses that would have to be refunded if the court rules against them, according to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. The tariffs, however, have become a flashpoint, with two lower courts declaring them illegal because they bypassed Congress, and the president rushing to the Supreme Court seeking reversal as soon as possible.
"With tariffs, we are a rich nation; without tariffs, we are a poor nation," wrote Solicitor General D. John Sauer in the government's briefs seeking Supreme Court review.
Or as President Trump put it, "One year ago the United States was a dead country, and now, because of the trillions of dollars being paid by countries that have so badly abused us, America is Strong, financially viable, and respected country again."
In defending the legality of the Trump tariffs, Solicitor General Sauer noted that other presidents have imposed similar tariffs, dating back to 1813. The question before the Supreme Court, however, is whether those earlier tariffs were as broad as Trump's tariffs, and whether they were authorized by Congress.
Just what the tariff percentages are has been a moving work in progress, with Trump often shifting what they will be for each country. But the justification for the tariffs has been two-fold. First, "to stem the flood of fentanyl across U.S. borders." And second "to rectify America's country-killing trade deficits."
The business community, normally supportive of many Trump initiatives, has rebelled, with the main challengers in the case alleging that the tariffs will bankrupt them, rather than save them. In joining the request for intervention from the Supreme Court, the challengers said that the Trump policies have, "for the first time in American history imposed massive tariffs" far exceeding anything enacted by Congress. The result has been to inflict "profound harms" on American businesses, particularly small businesses.
In establishing the tariffs, the challengers contend Trump has vastly exceeded any power delegated to him by Congress under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. If the tariffs are upheld, the challengers maintain the statute would be expanded to "give the President overnight the power to tax every corner of the economy that is subject to regulation."
A dozen states have joined the fight against the tariffs. They argued that contrary to Trump's argument that the tariffs are aimed a preventing illegal fentanyl imports, the IEEPA statute does not authorize such a tenuous connection to commerce.
"Taxing Tomatoes does not deal with fentanyl," the challengers said in their brief, adding "if that is dealing with the threat of traffickers, then anything is."
The Trump administration counters that the lower court rulings, if upheld, would "eviscerate a critical tool for addressing emergencies" and "transform judges into foreign-policy referees," allowing other nations "to hold America's economy hostage to their retaliatory trade policies."
Copyright 2025 NPR
