The White House plans to ask the Supreme Court this week to validate President Donald Trump’s ’emergency’ tariffs, after a Federal Appeals Court ruled on Friday that his move to impose them was illegal.
Investors and officials in other countries have been stuck in a fog of confusion about the status of Trump’s tariffs, which were filed in April under an emergency powers bill, which the full bench of the Appeals Court said was not possible.
However, analysts and some prominent commentators have said they believe the court, which has a strong conservative majority, is likely to either rule in his favour, or allow him to achieve the same outcome via other legal avenues.
ALSO SEE: Chinese Miner Accused of Cover-up of Big Toxic Spill in Africa – AP
Legal and trade experts said the Supreme Court’s 6-3 majority of Republican-appointed justices may slightly improve Trump’s odds of keeping in place his “reciprocal” and fentanyl-related tariffs after a federal appeals court ruled 7-4 last week that they are illegal. But some said he could face tough legal questions as his administration presses ahead with backup plans.
Trump said on Tuesday that his administration would seek, as early as Wednesday, an expedited ruling by the Supreme Court “because we need an early decision.” He warned of “devastation” if the duties he imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) are struck down.
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit agreed on Friday with a lower court in finding that IEEPA does not grant the president unlimited authority to impose tariffs, and that the 1977 statute does not mention the term among regulatory powers it allows in a national emergency.
The ruling marked a rare setback for Trump, who has sought to re-order the global economy in the US’s favour with tariffs by declaring a national emergency over decades of trade deficits. Trump has won a string of Supreme Court victories since returning to office, from allowing the deportation of migrants to permitting a ban on transgender people in the military.
Top administration officials, including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, say they expect the Supreme Court to uphold the use of IEEPA to justify tariffs, but will turn to other legal means if needed.
The tariffs will remain in place at least through October 14 to allow time for the government to file the Supreme Court appeal.
Will he face the same standard as Biden?
Trump’s Department of Justice has argued that the law allows tariffs under emergency provisions that authorise a president to “regulate” imports or block them completely.
How far that unwritten regulatory authority goes is the biggest challenge for Trump’s appeal, and two losses have led some legal scholars to predict that the Court of International Trade’s original ruling against the tariffs will ultimately be upheld.
“I have a really hard time believing that the Supreme Court is going to read IEEPA in such a broad way that the President can write and rewrite the tariff code in any way he wishes, on any particular day for any particular reason,” said John Veroneau, a former Republican-appointed deputy US Trade Representative and partner at Covington and Burling.
Veroneau said that the case will test the Supreme Court’s “major questions doctrine”, which holds that if Congress wants to give an executive agency the power to make decisions of “vast economic and political significance,” it must do so explicitly.
The doctrine was used against former President Joe Biden in 2023 when the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that he overstepped his authority by moving to cancel up to $400 billion in student loans – an order that the court said had a “staggering” scope of impact.
A key question is whether the court will apply the same standard to Trump’s tariffs. Comparing these to the impact of the student loan cancellations, the appeals court said in its decision that “the overall economic impact of the tariffs imposed under the government’s reading of IEEPA is even larger still.”
Bessent suggests 1930 Act could be used
Balancing this will be the Supreme Court’s traditional deference to the president on matters of foreign affairs and national emergencies, an issue where the 6-3 conservative majority may come into play. Six of the seven appeals court judges voting against the IEEPA tariffs were appointed by Democratic presidents, but there were crossover votes among both parties’ appointees.
“Given the Federal Circuit’s majority opinion and the dissent were quite robust, the Supreme Court will likely address the meat of whether IEEPA allows the administration to impose tariffs,” said Ryan Majerus, a former senior Commerce Department official and a partner with King and Spalding.
“That decision, either way, will have significant implications for where the administration’s trade policy goes next,” Majerus said.
The Trump administration has already been expanding tariff investigations under other legal authorities, including the national security-focused Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, under which a probe into furniture imports has been launched.
Bessent told Reuters that another option could be a provision of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, which allows the president to impose tariffs of up to 50% on imports from countries that are found to discriminate against US commerce. The statute, Section 338, has been largely dormant for decades, but would allow for a quick imposition of tariffs.
Adverse ruling could create a big headache
If the IEEPA tariffs ultimately are struck down, trade lawyers said that a major headache for the Trump administration will be refunds of paid duties. Majerus said importers can lodge protests at the Customs and Border Protection agency to obtain refunds, but these efforts may end up in litigation.
Customs reported that as of August 25, collections of Trump’s tariffs imposed under IEEPA totalled some $65.8 billion.
A source familiar with the Trump administration’s thinking said that lawyers sifted through the ruling over the Labour Day holiday weekend to gauge possible outcomes and expected a quick appeal to the Supreme Court, with a final decision likely in early 2026.
Trump has said allowing the tariffs to be removed “would be a total disaster for the country.” And some legal analysts have suggested the ruling may not come till the second quarter of 2026.
But Goldman Sachs economics team has told clients: “However the Supreme Court ultimately rules, the president will retain substantial authority to impose tariffs.”
Even so, it means months of further uncertainty for businesses in the US and abroad, as well as officials in many other countries.
Analysts from Jefferies have said that if the Supreme Court does rule against Trump’s reciprocal tariffs, US importers may be able to claim refunds for levies they have paid, which Reuters commentator Mike Dolan said could create a “potentially chaotic process.”
It may also mean that trade agreements with other countries or regions, such as the European Union, may have to be renegotiated.
And that “could reignite questions around US fiscal sustainability,” Jefferies said.
Reuters with additional editing and input by Jim Pollard
ALSO SEE:
Japan Wants Issues Sorted Before Trade Rep Seals Big Tariff Deal
Trump’s 50% Tariffs on Indian Imports Hits Jobs, Bilateral Ties
India’s Modi ‘Avoiding Trump’s Phone Calls’ As Tariffs Hit: Reports
Trump’s Tariffs Spur Calls to Boycott American Goods in India
Japan Debates How to Handle Rushed Tariff Deal With US
Toyota Slashes Profit Forecast, Sees $9.5 Billion Tariff Hit
Dozens of Countries Hit With Steep US Tariffs, But Some Feel Relief
Nikkei Jumps After Trump Strikes 15% Tariff Deal With Japan
S Korea’s Lee Will Try to Pacify Trump With Big Shipbuilding Boost
