...
By Gabe Whisnant
News Editor
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
President Donald Trump responded to a question from Fox News' Bret Baier about "overly skeptical" Supreme Court justices during Wednesday's hearing over his executive ability to unilaterally impose far-reaching tariffs.
Trump responded during Baier's Special Report interview, "I heard the court case went well today. But I will say this, it would be devastating for our country if we lost that. It's one of the most important cases in the history of our country."
He continued, saying the ability to impose tariffs were, in part, a matter of national security, "As an example President Xi, he hit us with the rare earths, then I hit him with a tariff ... 100 percent tariff on top of the other tariffs that you're paying. Then he called me in 10 minutes and we made a deal."
Read More on Politics
Rare earth elements are a group of 17 minerals critical to the production of advanced technologies, including smartphones, electric vehicles and missile guidance systems.
Trump also told Baier, "If I didn’t have tariffs, the entire world would be in a depression. I did this for the world. If I didn't put 100 percent tariff immediately on China, because of magnets, a special kind of rare earth, we'd be closed up."
...
Why It Matters
The case could decide whether Trump can unilaterally impose sweeping tariffs under emergency powers — a ruling that could reshape the balance of power between Congress and the White House and carry trillion-dollar implications for the global economy.
If Trump loses, the fallout could be complex: the Treasury Department has already collected nearly $90 billion in duties under the contested policy, which could have to be refunded. Even so, legal experts say Trump would still retain some authority to impose tariffs under other trade laws — though those statutes carry stricter limits on how quickly and broadly he can act.
What To Know
The dispute marks the biggest legal test yet of Trump’s boundary-pushing presidency and threatens a cornerstone of his economic agenda. During the session, several conservative justices joined their liberal colleagues in questioning whether a 1977 emergency law grants presidents near-limitless authority to set and adjust import duties.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, one of Trump’s own appointees, expressed deep concern about the administration’s expansive interpretation of the law, warning that it risked eroding congressional power over taxation and trade — issues that once helped spark the American Revolution.
“It’s a one-way ratchet toward the gradual but continual accretion of power in the executive branch and away from the people’s elected representatives,” he said.
Chief Justice John Roberts pressed government lawyers on whether the statute would allow tariffs “on any product, from any country, in any amount, for any length of time.” Justice Amy Coney Barrett also questioned the scope of the president’s authority, asking why so many countries — including allies like Spain and France — were targeted under Trump’s “reciprocal” tariff policy.
The administration argues the tariffs are aimed at regulating foreign commerce, not raising revenue. Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the justices the measures were designed to correct unfair trade practices, calling any revenue collected “incidental.” But within hours of the hearing, Trump told business leaders in Miami that his tariffs were helping “bring in hundreds of billions of dollars” and would help cut the deficit — an argument that appeared to contradict his own legal defense.
The case stems from two rounds of tariffs: one imposed in February on imports from Canada, China and Mexico following Trump’s national emergency declaration over drug trafficking, and another sweeping package announced in April that targeted dozens of countries. Multiple lawsuits — including one from a coalition of Democratic-led states and another from small businesses — claim Trump overstepped the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which they say was never intended to authorize tariffs. Lower courts largely agreed, though one appellate panel upheld Trump’s actions.
The justices spent much of the session debating the “major questions” doctrine — a legal principle used to strike down large-scale policies by presidents of both parties, including President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan. Challengers argued that Trump’s tariffs, projected to raise $3 trillion over the next decade, should meet the same fate. The administration countered that foreign trade is central to Trump’s foreign policy, an area where courts traditionally defer to the executive branch.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh appeared sympathetic to that position. “You’re forcing the president to respond to an emergency and taking away his suite of tools,” he said. Roberts, however, signaled concern about granting the president unchecked power in matters that could affect domestic consumers.
What People Are Saying
Attorney Neal Katyal, representing small business owners challenging the tariffs, warned that a ruling in Trump’s favor would permanently shift power away from Congress: “We will never get this power back if the government wins this case. What president wouldn’t veto legislation to rein this power in and pull out the tariff power?”
Justice Gorsuch questioned Sauer about the limitations of the president’s power: “I want it explained to me how you draw the line, because you say we shouldn’t be concerned because this is foreign affairs and the president has inherent authority, and so delegation off the books, more or less. And if that’s true, what would prohibit Congress from just abdicating all responsibility to regulate foreign commerce, for that matter, declare war, to the president."
What Happens Next
A ruling in the case is expected in the coming months, potentially redefining the scope of presidential economic authority for years to come.
This article includes reporting by the Associated Press.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines