{"id":264454,"date":"2025-11-06T00:41:14","date_gmt":"2025-11-06T00:41:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/264454\/"},"modified":"2025-11-06T00:41:14","modified_gmt":"2025-11-06T00:41:14","slug":"does-trump-have-broad-tariff-powers-u-s-supreme-court-appears-skeptical-national","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/264454\/","title":{"rendered":"Does Trump have broad tariff powers? U.S. Supreme Court appears skeptical – National"},"content":{"rendered":"

A majority of U.S. Supreme Court<\/a> justices appeared skeptical Wednesday about President Donald Trump\u2019s<\/a> ability to unilaterally impose far-reaching tariffs<\/a> on Canada and other countries, putting the future of his economic agenda into question.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Three conservative justices raised questions about whether a federal national emergency law gives Trump near-limitless power<\/a> to set and change duties on imports without approval from Congress, which has constitutional authority over revenue-generating policies like tariffs.<\/p>\n

The court\u2019s three liberal justices also appeared dubious, setting the stage for a possible reversal or limitation of Trump\u2019s tariff power.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt was a hot bench \u2014 lots of questions,\u201d Ashley Akers, a former U.S. Department of Justice senior trial counsel, told Global News in an interview Wednesday.<\/p>\n

Experts have warned, however, that even if the high court strikes down Trump\u2019s tariffs and use of the emergency law, that likely won\u2019t bring an end to his efforts to raise prices on imported goods.<\/p>\n

Story continues below advertisement<\/p>\n

\t\t\t\t\t\t\"Click<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t1:52
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tU.S. Supreme Court showdown for Trump\u2019s tariffs will impact dozens of countries\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n

\t\t\t\tWhat happened during the hearing?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n

The case centred around two lawsuits that challenged Trump\u2019s use of national emergency authorities to lay tariffs on countries around the world, including the so-called fentanyl tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China, as well as the \u201creciprocal\u201d levies on dozens of other nations.<\/p>\n

The plaintiffs, which included over a dozen states and hundreds of American small businesses reliant on now-costly imports, said the 1977 law Trump used, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEPPA), makes no mention of tariffs and was an unprecedented method of imposing them.<\/p>\n

Story continues below advertisement<\/p>\n

The Trump administration argued the law\u2019s language allowing the president to regulate imports in response to a national emergency includes tariffs.<\/p>\n

Justice Neil Gorsuch, though, appeared concerned that could shift too much power to the president on an issue that helped spark the American Revolution.<\/p>\n

\u201cIs the constitutional assignment of the taxing power to Congress, the power to reach into the pockets of the American people, just different?\u201d he asked. \u201cThat had to be done locally, through our elected representatives.\u201d<\/p>\n

Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Chief Justice John Roberts also raised questions about whether the emergency-power law allowed for tariffs on \u201cany product, from any country, in any amount, for any length of time,\u201d as Roberts put it.<\/p>\n

\t\t\t\t\t\"Get<\/p>\n

\t\t\t\t\tGet daily National news<\/p>\n

Get the day’s top news, political, economic, and current affairs headlines, delivered to your inbox once a day.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe basis for the claim seems to be a misfit,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said IEEPA was intended to limit presidential authority, not expand it.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s pretty clear that Congress was trying to constrain the emergency powers of the president,\u201d Jackson said.<\/p>\n

\t\t\t\t\t\t\"Click<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t1:36
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tU.S. Supreme Court to hear arguments on Trump tariffs on Nov. 5\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n

Trump argued Tuesday in a social media post that the case\u2019s outcome means \u201cLIFE OR DEATH\u201d for the U.S. economy.<\/p>\n

Story continues below advertisement<\/p>\n

He has also said the tariffs are a \u201cvital\u201d negotiating tool with other countries to reach trade deals and force policy changes on matters of national security \u2014 including, in Canada\u2019s case, fentanyl trafficking.<\/p>\n

Roberts suggested that the\u00a0court\u00a0could apply its \u201cmajor questions\u201d doctrine, which requires executive branch actions of vast economic and political significance to be clearly authorized by Congress.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court applied the major questions doctrine multiple times during the Biden administration, including striking down efforts to forgive US$400 billion in student loans and mandate COVID-19 vaccinations for government workers under a different law dealing with national emergencies.<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\tMore on Money
\n\t\t\tMore videos\n\t\t<\/p>\n

The plaintiffs said Trump\u2019s tariffs should get the same treatment, since they\u2019ll have a much greater economic effect, an argument Akers said was \u201cstrong\u201d given that precedent.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis case is a situation where the government is asking for the broadest executive power, so that certainly could come into play in the justices\u2019 decision here,\u201d Akers said.<\/p>\n

The government, on the other hand, argued the tariffs are different because they\u2019re a major part of his approach to foreign affairs, an area where the courts should not be second-guessing the president.<\/p>\n

Justices like Brett Kavanaugh seemed receptive to that argument, and Roberts also seemed hesitant to restrict the president\u2019s foreign affairs power.<\/p>\n

Story continues below advertisement<\/p>\n

But Gorsuch also brought up a hypothetical international conflict while questioning whether allowing Trump these tariff powers would further undermine the U.S. Constitution\u2019s separation of powers between the federal executive and legislative branches.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhat would prohibit Congress from just abdicating all responsibility to regulate foreign commerce \u2014 or for that matter, declare war \u2014 to the president?\u201d Gorsuch asked.<\/p>\n

\t\t\t\t\t\t\"Click<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t1:54
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhat Trump\u2019s \u2018illegal\u2019 tariff ruling means for U.S.-Canada trade\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n

\n\t\tTrending Now\n\t<\/p>\n

\t\t\t<\/p>\n

\t\t\t\t\t\t\"\"\/<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t\tCarney is cutting the luxury tax. What else is getting axed in Budget 2025?\n\t\t\t<\/p>\n

\t\t\t<\/a><\/p>\n

\t\t\t<\/p>\n

\t\t\t\t\t\t\"\"\/<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t\tCarney calls floor-crossing ex-Conservative MP \u2018exceptionally valuable\u2019\n\t\t\t<\/p>\n

\t\t\t<\/a><\/p>\n

Justices noted during the hearing that they were hearing the case on an \u201cexpedited\u201d timeline given the extraordinary nature of the issue.<\/p>\n

Story continues below advertisement<\/p>\n

A collection of small businesses that joined the case have said the uncertainty is driving them to the brink of bankruptcy, adding to the urgency.<\/p>\n

Lawyers involved with the case have predicted a decision could come before the end of the year.<\/p>\n

U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who attended the hearing at Trump\u2019s request, told Fox Business he left feeling \u201cvery, very optimistic\u201d about the government\u2019s chances, adding the plaintiffs had \u201calmost embarrassed themselves.\u201d<\/p>\n

Akers, however, felt the challenging lawyers were able to capitalize on how the government \u201creally wants to have it both ways\u201d by arguing the emergency tariffs are both a regulatory action and a revenue-generator, which she argued didn\u2019t hold up to scrutiny from the justices.<\/p>\n

She and other experts agreed, however, that if the court rules against the government, Trump will find other ways to impose tariffs on countries and industries.<\/p>\n

Those include Section 301 of the U.S. Trade Act to address \u201cunfair trade practices\u201d \u2014 leveled against China in Trump\u2019s first term \u2014 and the Section 232 tariffs Trump has imposed on foreign steel, aluminum, autos, lumber and more, which the case does not address.<\/p>\n

\u201cI think folks might be putting a little bit too much stock in the Supreme Court decision \u2014 in particular, the folks who don\u2019t like tariffs,\u201d said Patrick Childress, a former attorney for the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative who dealt in part with matters involving the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement on free trade.<\/p>\n

Story continues below advertisement<\/p>\n

\u201cWhile there very well could be this brief period while the tariff burden is low, I think the tariffs are going to go up to the same or very similar rates pretty quickly.\u201d<\/p>\n

\t\t\t\t\t\t\"Click<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t0:39
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tTrump\u2019s tariffs on Canada, other countries deemed illegal: U.S. appeals court\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n

The key difference will be that both Section 301 and 232 tariffs will require studies and consultation before they can be enforced.<\/p>\n

The aftermath of a ruling against Trump also could be complicated, if the government must issue refunds. So far, the U.S. Treasury has collected almost US$90 billion from the import taxes the president has imposed under the emergency powers law.<\/p>\n

Chi Carmody, a professor at Western University who studies international trade law, previously told Global News that process could see further court proceedings if the administration slow-walks the payouts.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s going to take a very long time and there\u2019s going to be some uncertainty\u201d going forward, he said.<\/p>\n

Story continues below advertisement<\/p>\n

\u2014With files from Global\u2019s Reggie Cecchini, the Associated Press and Reuters<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"A majority of U.S. Supreme Court justices appeared skeptical Wednesday about President Donald Trump\u2019s ability to unilaterally impose…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":264455,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[1376,8334,46,43,44,714,41,39,42,40,2845,27524],"class_list":["post-264454","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-headlines","tag-donald-trump","tag-donald-trump-tariffs","tag-economy","tag-headlines","tag-news","tag-politics","tag-top-news","tag-top-stories","tag-topnews","tag-topstories","tag-u-s-news","tag-u-s-supreme-court"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/264454","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=264454"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/264454\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/264455"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=264454"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=264454"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=264454"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}