A lower court previously found that the president overstepped his authority by imposing tariffs under a law intended only for national emergencies.
On Tuesday, the US Supreme Court agreed to weigh the legality of Donald Trump’s sweeping global tariffs, launching a high-stakes showdown over one of the Republican president’s most aggressive uses of executive power—a pillar of his economic and trade agenda.
The justices agreed to hear the Justice Department’s appeal of a lower court decision that found Trump exceeded his authority by imposing most of his tariffs under a law reserved for emergencies. The court moved quickly, taking up the case just a week after the administration’s request—one that could shape the fate of trillions of dollars in customs duties over the next decade.
The court, set to open its new nine-month term on October 6, has fast-tracked the case, scheduling oral arguments for the first week of November.
The justices also agreed to take up a separate challenge to Trump’s tariffs, this one brought by Learning Resources, a family-owned toy company.
On August 29, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington ruled that Trump overstepped his authority by invoking the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose the tariffs—striking at a central pillar of his second-term agenda. The tariffs, however, remain in force as the case heads to the Supreme Court.
The tariffs are a centerpiece of the trade war Trump reignited upon returning to the presidency in January—one that has strained relations with US trading partners, roiled financial markets, and deepened global economic uncertainty.
Trump has wielded tariffs as a central instrument of foreign policy, deploying them to rewrite trade deals, force concessions, and apply political pressure abroad.
In April, Trump invoked the 1977 law to impose tariffs on imports from specific countries to tackle trade deficits, building on separate tariffs announced in February aimed at China, Canada, and Mexico as economic leverage to curb the flow of fentanyl and other illicit drugs into the US.
The law grants the president authority to act against "an unusual and extraordinary threat" during a national emergency. Historically, it has been applied to impose sanctions on adversaries or freeze their assets—but never, until Trump, to levy tariffs.
Trump’s Justice Department has argued that the law permits tariffs under emergency provisions, granting the president authority to "regulate" imports. "The stakes in this case could not be higher," the department warned in court filings, asserting that denying Trump’s tariff powers “would expose our nation to trade retaliation without effective defenses and thrust America back to the brink of economic catastrophe.”
Trump has warned that a loss in the case could force the U.S. to unravel trade deals, leaving the country to "suffer so greatly."
In August, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported that higher import duties could trim the U.S. national deficit by $4 trillion over the next decade.
