Trump’s Tariff Policy Awaits Supreme Court Judgment

On November 5, the U.S. Supreme Court began hearings on the constitutionality of the Trump administration’s tariff measures. Two lower courts had found the measures unlawful, but differing interpretations among the Supreme Court justices leave the outcome uncertain.

Issue 1. Is a trade deficit a “national emergency”?

• President Trump declared a national emergency citing trade deficits and drug inflows, but some justices questioned whether long-term trade deficits or social issues qualify as emergencies.

• The coalition of importers argued that the IEEPA was intended for temporary action in response to security crises or economic attacks, not as a tool for trade negotiation or political leverage.

• The Trump administration countered that “the trade deficit poses a serious threat to national security and employment,” asserting that economic imbalance itself can constitute an emergency. It emphasized administrative urgency, stating, “If the president cannot act immediately, there is no reason for an emergency law to exist.”

Issue 2. Does the IEEPA extend to tariffs?

• The justices first asked, “Since a tariff is essentially a tax, should it not fall under congressional authority under the Constitution?”

• The Trump administration argued that the IEEPA explicitly grants the president authority “to restrict or regulate imports,” making tariffs a lawful measure within that scope.

• The importer coalition countered that the law contains no reference to tariffs and challenged the administration’s broad interpretation of presidential authority.

Questions Following the Supreme Court Ruling

If the Court rules the tariffs unlawful, it could lead to large-scale compensation claims and complex refund procedures. If upheld, it would set a precedent enabling future presidents to impose tariffs under the pretext of a national emergency.

Before the hearing, a White House spokesperson mentioned a “Plan B,” indicating that other legal provisions could justify tariffs. Experts note that such measures would be less immediate and limited than those under the IEEPA, but the administration’s stance underscores its continued commitment to aggressive tariff policy and protectionism. Global trade tensions, particularly between the United States and China, are unlikely to ease soon.