What we covered here today
• In the most significant economic case to reach the Supreme Court in years, Trump’s authority to issue emergency tariffs faced deep skepticism from key conservatives — including Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.
• While justices had tough questions for both sides, a majority expressed reservations about the administration relying on declared emergencies to issue the unchecked tariffs.
• As plaintiffs presented their case, Kavanaugh repeatedly noted that courts had previously allowed then-President Richard Nixon to use similar emergency powers to impose tariffs during his administration.
• Both sides previously framed the appeal in existential terms, with Trump warning that a ruling against him could have “catastrophic” consequences for the nation’s economic health. The companies challenging the policy say the on-again-off-again tariff announcements have driven costs — and uncertainty — to intolerable levels.
Our live coverage of today’s Supreme Court hearing on tariffs has concluded. Please scroll through the posts below to learn about Wednesday’s developments.
Trump's former commerce secretary expects a split decision
Former Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said Wednesday he expected “a split decision” from the Supreme Court on whether President Donald overstepped his authority in implementing global tariffs.
The main arguments made by those challenging the tariffs were that “tariffs… are equivalent to a tax but taxing authority is reserved to Congress,” and that emergency powers allow for license fees to be imposed, “which also could be construed as a tax,” Ross told CNN after arguments ended.
“I would be extremely surprised if the Court would rely on such nit-picking to create chaos in international trade and the securities markets,” Ross said, “especially since in most cases the other country has agreed to pay them and to lower the tariffs on our exports to them.”
“My guess is that it will be a split decision that, at most, will knock out a few of the specific ones,” Ross said.
Comedian John Mulaney attends arguments
John Mulaney was among the Supreme Court spectators Wednesday.
Neal Katyal, the lawyer representing the small businesses challenging the Trump administration’s tariffs, argued in front of the court Wednesday.
Mulaney has made several appearances with Katyal, who served as acting solicitor general during the Obama administration. Katyal was a guest on the talk show “Everybody’s Live with John Mulaney.” And, in 2023, Mulaney was a guest on Katyal’s podcast, “Courtside.”
Trump’s global tariffs face tough questioning from Supreme Court
A majority of the Supreme Court appeared skeptical of President Donald Trump’s emergency tariffs Wednesday, with several conservative justices picking away at many of the administration’s top arguments to defend the import duties in one of the most closely watched oral arguments of the year.
Court wrapped shortly before 1 p.m., and in arguments that spanned over two and a half hours, the 6-3 conservative majority asked difficult questions of both sides. The overall cadence suggested that a majority at least had reservations about the administration relying on declared emergencies to impose sweeping global tariffs with no limit.
“The vehicle is imposition of taxes on Americans, and that has always been the core power of Congress,” Chief Justice John Roberts said in one key moment.
Roberts and other members of the court’s conservative wing had tough questions for the small- and medium-sized business that are challenging Trump’s tariffs. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in particular, seemed concerned about limiting the power of a president to raise tariffs in an emergency.
Kavanaugh, a potential key vote in the case, repeatedly noted that a lower court had allowed then-President Richard Nixon to impose global tariffs under a similar law during his administration – a historical reference that suggested Congress intended to give a president “tools to respond to an emergency in an appropriate way.”
The court has repeatedly sided with the second Trump administration this year, including a major case involving the power of federal courts to temporarily pause a president’s policies. If the court rules against Trump over tariffs it would be the first major break of his second term.
The court is expected to hand down a decision by the end of June – or potentially sooner.
Raskin says conservative Supreme Court justices "may finally be willing to put the brakes" on Trump
Maryland Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin told CNN’s Dana Bash today the Supreme Court “may finally be willing to put the brakes” on President Donald Trump’s expansive use of his executive power after his tariff authority appears to have been met with skepticism by some of the court’s conservative justices.
A majority of the court expressed reservations about the administration relying on declared emergencies to issue unchecked tariffs during oral arguments.
“If it were just calling balls and strikes, as [Chief Justice John] Roberts once said, it would be a 9-0 humiliating defeat for Donald Trump, here, because they’re just finger painting on the Constitution and on the statute. No other president has ever attempted to do this before.”
Miss the live conversation? Catch up here
CNN’s experts watched and analyzed today’s arguments in real time. Catch up on all of their insights below.
Barrett says potential tariff refunds "could be a mess"
If the justices rule against the Trump administration’s use of emergency powers to impose tariffs, will businesses that have paid the duties be entitled to refunds? That is a major question riding on the landmark Supreme Court case.
So far, the federal government has collected $90 billion in revenue from the tariffs being challenged, according to Customs and Border Protection data as of September 23.
“If you win, tell me how the reimbursement process would work,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked Neal Katyal, the lawyer representing the businesses challenging the Trump administration. “Would it be a complete mess?”
“We don’t deny that it’s difficult,” Katyal responded.
He said the five businesses he’s representing in the case should undeniably be entitled to a refund if the justices rule in their favor. But, once again, acknowledged refunds would be “complicated.”
“So, a mess,” Barrett interjected.
Plaintiff's lawyer says Trump has plenty of other ways to increase tariffs. Here are some of them
Neal Katyal, the lawyer representing the businesses challenging the Trump administration’s use of emergency economic powers to increase tariffs, said President Donald Trump can accomplish his goals by relying on other laws that more explicitly enable him to impose the import taxes.
Those alternatives, however, are more limited in scope and, in some cases, have time limits. Here are some of them:
- Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962: This gives the president the authority to impose higher tariffs on national security grounds. Trump has used this to raise tariffs on steel, aluminum and copper, among other goods.
- Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974: This allows the president to raise tariffs on other nations if they violate trade agreements after completing an investigation. The Trump administration recently initiated an investigation on Chinese trade practices and whether the country violated a trade agreement signed during Trump’s first term.
- Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930: While never implemented by any president, Trump could use this law to impose tariffs of up to 50% on imports from certain countries if he believes those nations are engaging in discriminatory trade practices.
Alito teases plaintiff lawyer over use of argument often touted by conservatives
Justice Samuel Alito teased the attorney representing businesses, noting that he had used an argument touted often by conservatives about Congress and its inability to pass off legislative duties to the president.
“I wonder if you ever thought that your legacy as a constitutional advocate would be the man who revived the non-delegation argument,” Alito joked to the attorney, Neal Katyal, who previously served as the acting Solicitor General for President Barack Obama.
“Heck yes,” Katyal replied quickly as Alito chuckled.
Katyal continued: “I think Justice Gorsuch nailed it on the head when saying that when you’re dealing with a statute that is this open ended – unlike anything we’ve ever seen – to give the president this kind of power? Yes, this isn’t just delegation running riot.”
Thomas, Alito concerned about limiting president’s power
Two conservative justices raised hypothetical questions to underscore the potential impact if the Supreme Court finds the law at issue doesn’t allow a president to impose any emergency tariff.
“If one of our major trading partners, for example China, held a US citizen hostage,” Justice Clarence Thomas asked, could the president impose a tariff “for the purposes of leveraging his position?”
Justice Samuel Alito asked whether a president could issue a tariff against an enemy on the precipice of war with the United States.
No, said Neal Katyal, representing the businesses challenging the Trump administration because tariffs – like taxes – are revenue raising.
When the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals decided the case against Trump, the majority ruled that the emergency law at issue might allow some tariffs in some situations, just not the sweeping ones Trump had levied.
A concurring opinion, and a federal district court in another case, said that the law doesn’t allow for tariffs.
The questions from Thomas and Alito appear to be attempting to steer away from the concurring opinion’s broader reasoning, which would broadly limit a president’s power.
Kavanaugh presses plaintiff on origins of emergency tariffs
Justice Brett Kavanaugh pressed Neal Katyal, the lawyer for the businesses challenging President Donald Trump’s tariffs, on why Congress didn’t alter the language in the emergency tariff law — the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) — if it was meant to rein in tariff-raising authorities.
Kavanaugh pointed out that the law, which Trump has been relying on to impose sweeping tariffs over the course of his second term, was enacted shortly after then-President Richard Nixon imposed broad tariffs.
Katyal argued that IEEPA should not necessarily be viewed as a response to Nixon’s prior tariff actions.
By way of example, Katyal pointed to Switzerland, which is being subjected to 39% tariffs: “That is just not something that any president has ever had the power to do in our history,” he said.
Roberts worries about foreign policy implications
Chief Justice John Roberts asked very punchy questions of the administration during the first hour of the debate, but he’s now pressing the attorney representing the small businesses challenging the tariffs.
It’s not as easy, Roberts said, to simply frame a tariff as a tax – a power reserved to Congress.
“It implicates, very directly, the president’s foreign affairs power,” said Roberts, who is a key vote to watch in the case.
Trump’s tariffs, Roberts said, were “quite effective” in achieving the president’s particular objective.
That position is closely aligned with the administration’s position that a president has broad power in the context of foreign affairs.
Barrett questions why every country is being subjected to "reciprocal" tariffs
One of the last questions before the plaintiffs’ arguments began came from Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
In addition to questioning the Trump administration’s novel use of a federal law to impose higher tariffs, she challenged why all countries are being subjected to “reciprocal” tariffs to begin with.
“Is it your contention that every country needed to be tariffed because of threats to the defense and industrial base? I mean, Spain, France? I could see it with some countries, but explain to me why as many countries needed to be subject to the reciprocal tariff policy,” Barrett asked Solicitor General D. John Sauer, who is representing the Trump administration.
Sauer argued the “reciprocal” tariffs Trump imposed are intentionally broad “because the emergency is so broad.” In enacting those tariffs, Trump has declared a national emergency stemming in part from alleged unfair trade policies practiced abroad.
Happening now: Plaintiff arguments underway
The long — and sometimes heated — round of questioning between Solicitor General D. John Sauer, who is representing the Trump administration, and the justices, has concluded.
Now Neal Katyal, the lawyer for the businesses challenging President Donald Trump’s argument for using emergency authorities to raise tariffs, is making his case.
Gorsuch: Could Congress delegate its war-declaring authority?
In another bad sign for the administration, Justice Neil Gorsuch is pressing Solicitor General D. John Sauer on the power of Congress to delegate its authority to the president. Gorsuch, a member of the conservative wing and a Trump nominee, has been a proponent of what’s known as the “nondelegation doctrine,” intended to keep clear lines separating the powers of Congress and the president.
If Congress can delegate its constitutional authority to levy tariffs, Gorsuch pressed, what else could it delegate?
“If that’s true, what would prohibit Congress from just abdicating all responsibility to regulate foreign commerce – for that matter, to declare war – to the president,” Gorsuch asked.
The point of Gorsuch’s question speaks directly to the idea of separation of powers. That aligns with an argument raised by the businesses challenging the tariffs: that imposing import duties, by default, is a power held by Congress.
Kagan: "We’re in emergencies -everything all the time"
Liberal Justice Elena Kagan appeared to take a jab at President Donald Trump’s repeated declarations of emergencies this year as a legal basis to expand the powers of his office and implement his agenda.
“You yourself think that the declaration of emergency is unreviewable. And even if it’s not unreviewable, it’s, of course, the kind of determination that this court would grant considerable deference to the to the president on,” Kagan told Solicitor General D. John Sauer.
“And in fact, you know, we’ve had cases recently which deal with the president’s emergency powers. And it turns out we’re in emergencies - everything all the time, about, like, half the world,” she added.
The administration is arguing that courts don’t have the power to second-guess the president’s determination that emergencies – like the ones he’s using to justify his tariffs – exist. The same argument has been pushed in cases challenging Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to speed up deportations and his deployment of National Guard troops in major US cities.
Courts typically give presidents a great deal of deference when it comes to cases involving emergency declarations, though several this year have rejected Trump’s argument that, as an initial matter, they lack authority to review those determinations at all.
Trump admin faces deep skepticism in early tariffs arguments
President Donald Trump’s attorney faced deep skepticism from several key conservative justices in early arguments at the Supreme Court over his sweeping global tariffs – a potentially troubling sign for the administration.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, in particular, pressed the administration hard on several points, including whether the law at issue in the case authorized Trump to impose his emergency tariffs.
Roberts pushed back on key arguments from the administration, suggesting that the language in the law – which permits a president to “regulate” imports – may not be clear enough to justify the import duties. Barrett, meanwhile, asked Solicitor General D. John Sauer whether the court had ever viewed the term to “regulate” to include sweeping tariffs.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, too, seemed skeptical of one of the administration’s historical arguments: That former President Richard Nixon was permitted by courts to impose tariffs under a precursor to the law at issue in the case.
The arguments are still ongoing and, often, the direction of the session can change with subsequent attorneys. However, Sauer has been asked to confront a number of serious and difficult questions from the conservative wing.
Roberts points to Congress’ power over taxes as he challenges admin’s claims that tariffs are not a tax
Chief Justice John Roberts, who has asked a number of questions skeptical of the administration’s arguments, at one point emphasized Congress’ “core power” of regulating taxes, rejecting the government’s claim that the tariffs aren’t taxes.
“The vehicle is imposition of taxes on Americans, and that has always been the core power of Congress,” Roberts said. “So to have the president’s foreign affairs power trump that basic power for Congress seems to me to kind of at least neutralize between the two powers, the executive power and the legislative power.”
The challengers to President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs have noted that American taxpayers, not foreign companies, ultimately pay for them. The administration has framed the tariffs as “regulatory” and have argued they are not taxes.
Barrett expresses strong skepticism over Trump admin's use of law to impose tariffs
It’s early in oral arguments at Wednesday’s landmark tariff case, but already there’s been a key moment: Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who was appointed by President Donald Trump, questions the administration’s novel use of a law to raise tariffs.
“Can you point to any other place in the code or any other time in history where that phrase, ‘to regulate importation’ has been used?” Barrett asked Solicitor General D. John Sauer, referring to language in a federal law the Trump administration has relied on to increase tariffs.
When Sauer waffled, Barrett pressed on.
Jackson says IEEPA was intended to “constrain” presidential power, not expand it
In a testy back and forth with Solicitor General D. John Sauer, liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson pushed back strongly on his argument that the emergency law President Donald Trump leaned on to impose his tariffs gave Trump sweeping authority.
“It’s pretty clear that Congress was trying to constrain the emergency powers of the president in IEEPA,” Jackson said, referring to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which was enacted in the 1970s.
“So it seems a little inconsistent to say that we have to interpret a statute that was designed to constrain presidential authority consistent with an understanding that Congress wanted the president to have essentially unlimited authority,” she added.
