On November 5, 2025, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a dispute over whether President Donald Trump’s administration may lawfully impose sweeping tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”).1 During the argument, the justices expressed skepticism towards the government’s position across ideological lines, indicating that the Court may reject President Trump’s authority to impose global tariffs pursuant to the IEEPA.
The justices continuously emphasized that IEEPA, which permits the President to “regulate” importation during a national emergency, does not use the word “tariff” or “duty.” Several justices noted that nowhere else in the U.S. Code has Congress conferred the power to impose tariffs merely through the power to “regulate.” Historically, tariff authority has been delegated through explicit language, such as in Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which expressly authorizes the imposition of duties under certain circumstances.
The government, however, argued that the IEEPA’s broad language allows the President to impose tariffs as a means of confronting national emergencies related to fentanyl and trade discrepancies. The Solicitor General contended that tariffs in this context are not “taxes” meant to raise revenue but rather “regulatory measures” designed to advance foreign-policy and national-security objectives. According to the government, the President has broad discretion in the arena of foreign affairs.
Both liberal and conservative justices appeared unconvinced. Justice Gorsuch questioned whether accepting the government’s theory would allow the President to unilaterally reorder the global trading system without congressional approval. Justices Roberts and Barrett both suggested that under the “major questions” doctrine, a decision of such economic and political consequence would require a clear statement from Congress.
If the Court rejects the government’s position, the ruling would represent a significant reaffirmation of Congress’s constitutional authority over foreign commerce. It would also mark a major limitation on the scope of emergency powers under IEEPA, which has historically been used for targeted sanctions and asset freezes.
The administration has already indicated that it possesses alternative sources of authority to sustain the tariffs. In particular, the government has previously cited Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act to enact certain tariffs, which authorizes tariffs to protect national security pending a finding from the Secretary of Commerce. That statute, unlike IEEPA, contains explicit language granting the President power to adjust import duties, providing a potential fallback position should the Court reject the tariffs under IEEPA.
1Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, No. 25-5202 (U.S. June 17, 2025).
