Supreme Court justices on Wednesday expressed skepticism about the legality of the aggressive tariffs President Donald Trump has imposed on most countries around the world.
Conservative and liberal justices grilled Attorney General D. John Sauer on the Trump administration’s approach to enacting tariff laws, which critics say violates Congress’ taxing powers.
A lower federal court ruled that Trump lacked the legal authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose so-called reciprocal tariffs on imports from many of the United States’ trading partners and to impose fentanyl tariffs on products from Canada, China and Mexico.
Mr. Sauer defended tariff policy based on authority to regulate foreign commerce, saying, “These are regulatory tariffs, not revenue-raising tariffs.”
“The fact that we’re making money is just a coincidence,” Sauer said shortly after oral arguments in the case began.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, one of the court’s three liberal members, told Sauer: “You say a tariff is not a tax, and that’s exactly what it is.”
“They are generating money, income from the American people,” Sotomayor said.
She later pointed out that no president other than Trump has used IEEPA to impose tariffs since it became law in 1977.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, one of six conservatives on the court, pressed Sauer on the fact that President Trump unilaterally imposed tariffs without Congressional approval, citing trade imbalances and the international emergency of fentanyl entering the United States.
“What would happen if the president vetoed a bill that would restore these powers?” Gorsuch asked.
“So, as a practical matter, once Congress hands over power to the president, it cannot take it back,” Gorsuch said. “This is a unilateral halt to the gradual but continued increase in power in the executive branch and away from the people’s elected representatives.”
Other conservatives (Chief Justice John Roberts, Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, and Samuel Alito) also pressed Sauer.
Tariffs start at a baseline of 10% for many countries and jump up to 50% for products from India and Brazil.
According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, tariffs, if maintained, will generate $3 trillion in additional revenue for the United States by 2035.
The group said last week that the federal government collected $151 billion in tariffs in the second half of fiscal year 2025, “an increase of nearly 300% compared to the same period” in fiscal year 2024.
November 5, 2025, Washington, DC – Supreme Court justices stand outside the U.S. Supreme Court as Rick Woldenberg, CEO of educational toy company Learning Resources, which is involved in a lawsuit against President Donald Trump, is scheduled to hear oral arguments on President Trump’s efforts to maintain tariffs after a lower court ruled that the president overstepped his authority.
Nathan Howard | Reuters
Neil Katyal, a lawyer for the plaintiffs in the case, opened his argument by saying, “Tariffs are taxes,” picking up a theme that several justices have raised against Sauer.
“Our Founders gave that taxing power solely to Congress.”
“We don’t think IEEPA will allow such junking of the global tariff structure,” Katiyar later said.
When Mr. Roberts asked whether the tariffs were related to the president’s authority to direct U.S. foreign policy, as Mr. Sauer claimed, Mr. Katiyal replied, “We agree that tariffs affect foreign policy.”
But he added that the Founding Fathers delegated taxing authority to Congress in the Constitution.
Katyal also pointed out that despite claims that reciprocal tariffs are used to address trade deficits, President Trump has imposed a 39% tariff on imports from Switzerland, despite the US having a trade surplus with that country.
No other president has ever done anything like that, he said.
The Supreme Court heard arguments for more than 2 1/2 hours but is not expected to rule on the case Wednesday.
It is not clear when the court will rule, but the Trump administration is pushing for a speedy decision.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in a court filing in September that the U.S. could have to pay back more than $750 billion if the Supreme Court rules that the tariffs are illegal and waits until next summer for that ruling.
Bessent attended Wednesday’s hearing.
Bessent later wrote in a post on X that Attorney General Sauer “made a strong and persuasive argument for the need to use IEEPA’s customs authority to address the state of emergency declared by President Trump.”
“More importantly, plaintiffs’ attorneys Neal Katyal and Benjamin Gutman supported claims that reflect a fundamental misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the Trump administration’s trade goals,” Bessent said.
“Mr. Katiyar and Mr. Gutman demonstrated a severe lack of understanding of economics, arguing that the president has the authority to impose embargoes and quotas on other countries because those measures do not affect government revenues,” Bessent wrote. “Of course they do. What an embarrassing statement to make in front of SCOTUS.”
The case is seen as a key legal test for President Trump, who has won several favorable Supreme Court rulings on other policies during his second term in the White House.
In a statement after the hearing, Victor Owen Schwartz of VOS Selections, one of the plaintiffs challenging the tariffs, said: “For nearly 40 years, my family has built this business from the ground up. Today, reckless tariffs threaten everything we’ve accomplished.”
“Let’s be clear: These tariffs are not paid by foreign governments or foreign companies,” said Schwartz, who owns a wine and spirits importing company. “American companies like me and American consumers are footing the bill for the billions of dollars that the government collects every month.”
“Unlike past tariffs that were intentionally set by Congress, these new tariffs are arbitrary.” “They are unpredictable and bad business.”
President Trump has argued that tariffs are critical to protecting the U.S. economy and people. He says these serve as a sharp incentive for companies to manufacture products in the United States.
“Tomorrow’s case before the U.S. Supreme Court is literally life or death for our country,” President Trump said in a social media post Tuesday.
“With victory, we will have tremendous but fair fiscal and national security,” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social.
“Without that, we are virtually defenseless against other countries that have taken advantage of us for years. Our stock market has consistently hit record highs, and our country has never been more respected than it is now,” he said.
“A big part of that is the economic security created by tariffs and the agreements we’ve negotiated to get there.”
Critics of the tariffs argue that the economic hit of the tariffs is borne not by foreign manufacturers but by U.S. importers, who pay the tariffs and pass most of the additional costs on to U.S. consumers.
President Trump had previously said he was considering attending oral arguments, but this would clearly be the first time for a sitting president.
“I will not be in court on Wednesday because I do not want to take away from the importance of this judgment,” he told Truth Socia I on Sunday.
“In my opinion, this will be one of the most important and consequential decisions ever handed down by the United States Supreme Court,” he wrote.
