Again and again since President Trump returned to the White House, the Supreme Court\u2019s conservative majority has blessed his boundary-pushing policies, allowing them to take effect on an interim basis while litigation plays out in the lower courts.<\/p>\n
But on Wednesday, the justices will consider for the first time whether to say \u201cno\u201d to Mr. Trump in a lasting way.<\/p>\n
At issue is the legality of his signature economic policy: the use of emergency powers to impose sweeping tariffs on nearly every U.S. trading partner. The outcome of the case could significantly affect the global economy, American businesses and consumers.<\/p>\n
Experts say the case is a tossup that poses difficult legal and political considerations for the justices, made all the more tense by Mr. Trump\u2019s efforts to personalize the dispute.<\/p>\n
Mr. Trump had mused about attending the court\u2019s argument<\/a> this week, and has spoken repeatedly of the case\u2019s importance to him. On Sunday, he said he decided against going to court, but stressed that he considered the stakes to be monumental.<\/p>\n The case \u201cis one of the most important in the history of the country,\u201d Mr. Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social<\/a>. \u201cIf a president was not able to quickly and nimbly use the power of tariffs, we would be defenseless, leading perhaps even to the ruination of our nation.\u201d<\/p>\n Observers of the court said the justices would be keenly aware that Mr. Trump would perceive a legal defeat as a personal blow.<\/p>\n \u201cYou can\u2019t help but think that that\u2019s going to be hovering over the decision-making process in this case,\u201d said Donald B. Verrilli Jr., who was the solicitor general during the Obama administration.<\/p>\n The Supreme Court\u2019s six conservative justices have so far been receptive to Mr. Trump\u2019s claims of presidential authority. Among other things, they have allowed the administration to withhold funds appropriated by Congress, kick transgender troops out of the military and pursue aggressive immigration-related policies \u2014 but all on a temporary, emergency basis.<\/p>\n The tariffs case is the first time the justices have weighed the underlying legal merits of a key administration priority in Mr. Trump\u2019s second term.<\/p>\n Other such cases are on the horizon. Next month, the court will consider Mr. Trump\u2019s efforts to seize control of independent agencies. And in January, the justices will weigh his attempt to remove a member of the Federal Reserve Board. The administration has also asked them to consider the legality of the president\u2019s executive order ending birthright citizenship.<\/p>\n Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law School professor and former top Justice Department lawyer under George W. Bush, said that because the legal issues were so closely contested in the tariffs matter, some justices could weigh broader implications across the set of presidential cases, concerned about either handing Mr. Trump too much power \u2014 or too many defeats.<\/p>\n \u201cAt the end of this term, we\u2019ll see wins and losses for Trump on presidential power,\u201d he said. \u201cThis is the case I think is the closest, so I don\u2019t know which way it will cut.\u201d<\/p>\n In a sign that the court recognizes the importance of the tariffs case, the justices set a brisk schedule for the parties to submit written briefs and present oral arguments. They now seem likely to rule swiftly rather than wait until the end of the term next summer, as is their usual practice for the most consequential decisions.<\/p>\n The case has divided the conservative legal community.<\/p>\n The Constitution gives Congress the power to impose taxes. But soon after taking office, Mr. Trump declared that a 1977 law gave him the power to impose tariffs unilaterally during emergencies.<\/p>\n He used the statute to announce tariffs on goods imported into the United States from China, Canada and Mexico, saying the levies were a punishment for failing to stop the flow of fentanyl. In April, he again relied on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act when he announced tariffs on imports from more than 100 trading partners<\/a>, saying they were needed to address trade deficits with the rest of the world.<\/p>\n The administration\u2019s on-again, off-again taxes on imports have roiled small businesses, prompting lawsuits from state officials and six companies, including the wine importer V.O.S. Selections and the toy manufacturer Learning Resources, whose cases are before the court on Wednesday. Mr. Trump\u2019s actions, they say, were unlawful, cut into their profits and forced them to lay off employees and raise prices.<\/p>\n The 1977 statute gives the president certain tools to \u201cdeal with any unusual and extraordinary threat\u201d to \u201cthe national security, foreign policy or economy of the United States.\u201d That includes the power to \u201cregulate\u201d imports.<\/p>\n The president\u2019s lawyers say that language gives him broad authority to impose tariffs when he believes an emergency exists.<\/p>\n But the law does not mention the words \u201ctariffs,\u201d \u201ctaxes\u201d or \u201cduties.\u201d If the word \u201cregulate\u201d meant \u201ctax,\u201d the small businesses told the court, the president \u201ccould tax everything from autos to zoos.\u201d<\/p>\n From the start, the administration has insisted that the consequences for the country are too significant for the court to resist Mr. Trump. They say that rolling back the tariffs \u2014 and potentially refunding money already collected \u2014 could lead to economic ruin akin to the Great Depression, an interruption of trade negotiations and diplomatic embarrassment.<\/p>\n \u201cI think the more deals we\u2019ve done, the more money coming in, it gets harder and harder for SCOTUS to rule against us,\u201d Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in August<\/a>, using an acronym for the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n