Trump tariffs faces Supreme Court test tomorrow: 5 things to know

The US Supreme Court is set to hear arguments Wednesday on the legality of President Donald Trump’s unprecedented use of powers for sweeping global tariffs in a case striking at the heart of the president’s economic agenda.

Since returning to the White House, Trump has invoked emergency economic powers to impose “reciprocal” tariffs over trade practices Washington deemed unfair, alongside separate duties targeting his country’s biggest trading partners: Mexico, Canada and China.

But these tariffs, a key prong of his “America First” trade policy aimed at protecting and boosting US industries, swiftly faced legal challenges.

Here are five things to know about the case:

• The main question of the hour would be whether or not the president is authorised to use emergency powers to justify his global tariff move. Trump has deployed the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which gives the head of the government power to to “regulate” imports in response to certain emergencies. It is noteworthy that no president before Trump has used the extraordinary measure to impose tariffs on trading partners. On Wednesday, small businesses and Democratic-led states will contend that Congress did not intend for the word “regulate” in the 1977 IEEPA to cover the imposition of tariffs. The upcoming hearing may feature a 50-year-old appellate decision dating back to former President Nixon, when he imposed a temporary 10 percent tariff by using IEEPA’s predecessor, Trading with the Enemy Act.

Even if the IEEPA does permit tariffs, it authorizes their use only in response to a declared national emergency that presents an “unusual and extraordinary threat.” Trump has cited two such emergencies to justify his actions. He first pointed to the influx of fentanyl as grounds for imposing tariffs on Canada, China, and Mexico, measures that date back to February. Then, in his April “Liberation Day” announcement, he declared a separate national emergency over trade deficits, using it to justify broad tariffs on countries around the world. Attorneys challenging the move argue that the trade deficit declaration rests on particularly weak legal footing. They note that Trump’s order repeatedly describes trade deficits as “persistent”, including in its title and nearly a dozen times throughout the text, language that undercuts the claim that the situation represents an urgent or extraordinary threat.


    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
    
      
      
    
    
    
    
      
      
    
    
      
        
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
        
      
      
      

      
       
        
       
        
     
     
    
      

      

• Trump tariffs will be thrown out of the window if the court agrees with the plaintiffs argument around regulations and emergencies that simply do not authorize Trump’s sweeping actions. Challengers of Trump tariffs also say that the “major questions doctrine” comes into play in this case. It says that major economic decisions that hold political significance must pass through the Congress first. In August, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that the administration’s interpretation of the IEEPA “runs afoul of the major questions doctrine.” Earlier, the Court of International Trade had found that any reading of the statute granting the president unlimited tariff authority would be “unconstitutional,” regardless of which legal doctrine is applied

• The conservative-majority Supreme Court could find the tariffs illegal, blocking duties imposed on goods from countries worldwide. Or judges could affirm Trump’s actions, opening the door to further levies. Also at stake are billions of dollars in customs revenue already collected and Trump’s efforts to leverage tariffs for favorable trade deals – or other political priorities. The Supreme Court’s ruling, however, would not directly affect sector-specific tariffs Trump imposed, including on steel, aluminum and automobiles

• Ryan Majerus, a former US trade official, told AFP that besides supporting or blocking Trump’s global tariffs, the court could also allow their imposition with certain limitations. The ruling could differentiate between “reciprocal” tariffs seeking to narrow trade gaps and others imposed to crack down on fentanyl entering the United States, added Majerus, a partner at law firm King & Spalding. Even if the top court found Trump’s global tariffs illegal, the administration could tap other laws to impose 15-percent tariffs for 150 days

With inputs from agencies