WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to quickly decide a high-stakes showdown over President Donald Trump’s tariffs on imports from foreign nations, a signature policy of his second term.
At issue is Trump’s power to unilaterally impose tariffs, without congressional approval, under a law reserved for use in times of emergency.
The court took two different cases covering most of Trump’s tariffs, including one filed by the Trump administration last week after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled on Aug. 29 that the president exceeded his authority. The other case is a similar challenge brought by two educational toy companies.
The tariffs, for now, remain in effect while the court decides the case.
Under the streamlined process, the court will hear oral arguments the first week of November and issue a ruling sometime after that.
The cases concern two sets of tariffs. One is country-by-country or “reciprocal” tariffs, which range from 34% for China to a 10% baseline for the rest of the world. The other is a 25% tariff Trump imposed on some goods from Canada, China and Mexico for what the administration said was those countries’ failure to curb the flow of fentanyl.
Other tariffs implemented using different legal authorities, such as 50% steel and aluminum tariffs on all other worldwide trading partners, are not at issue in the cases before the court.
Even if Trump loses at the Supreme Court, he has other avenues to impose additional tariffs.
Five businesses challenging Trump’s tariffs had agreed in one of the cases that the Supreme Court should step in immediately to decide such a consequential issue. A group of 12 states also sued to block the tariffs.
In the second case, the companies had already asked the court to take it upon an expedited basis earlier this year.
The appeals court ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which allows the president to regulate imports when there is a national emergency, does not give sweeping powers to impose global tariffs of unspecified duration.
The Constitution specifically states that the power to set tariffs is assigned to Congress.
The high court’s 6-3 conservative majority has frequently ruled in favor of Trump in the first few months of his term, but some legal experts believe it may be more skeptical about his tariff powers.
During the Biden administration, the court was dubious of the White House’s efforts to seek sweeping executive authority using laws that did not specifically address the policy question at issue. In one significant example, the court, endorsing what has been dubbed the “major questions doctrine,” ruled against President Joe Biden’s plan to forgive student loan debt.
V.O.S. Selections Inc., a wine and spirits importer, and Plastic Services and Products, a pipe and fittings company, are among five businesses that sued Trump over his use of the emergency law in one of the cases.
The Court of International Trade initially blocked the tariffs in late May, prompting the Trump administration to appeal.
In the second case, a federal judge in Washington also ruled in favor of the two companies, Learning Resources and hand2mind.
