Key Takeaways From the U.S. Supreme Court Hearing on Trump Tariffs

Here are five key takeaways from the hearing on November 5 at the U.S. Supreme Court over the legality of tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump, in a consolidated case brought by small businesses and nearly a dozen Democratic-led states:

• Key conservative justices expressed skepticism about the tariffs. Chief Justice John Roberts said they were an “imposition of taxes on Americans and that has always been the core power of Congress.” Trump-appointed Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett asked skeptical questions, but also probed arguments by tariff opponents.
• U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer was repeatedly pressed to defend his contention that the 1977 law at the center of the case, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, gives Trump the authority to collect tens of billions of dollars in tariffs a month. “I don’t understand this argument,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor told Sauer. “This is a tax,” she said.
• The potential for businesses demanding billions in tariff reimbursements came up several times. Neal Katyal, a lawyer for the small businesses that sued, was asked by Barrett how that process would work if his side wins. “It seems to me like it could be a mess,” the justice said. Katyal said there was a large “specialized body of trade law” that would govern the process for companies to seek refunds. He acknowledged it would be “very complicated,” but argued that the Supreme Court previously had held that “serious economic dislocation isn’t a reason to do something.”
• Justice Brett Kavanaugh pushed back on the idea that Trump’s tariffs are “unprecedented,” saying Richard Nixon in the 1970s imposed “a 10% worldwide tax on every import” into the U.S. Kavanaugh also pushed back on the argument that a statute must contain the word “tariff” to grant a president powers to impose them.
• Sotomayor questioned the circumstances around some of Trump’s recent tariffs, underscoring many of the arguments made by plaintiffs who say the president’s actions undercut his claim that his levies help address national emergencies. “The president threatened to impose a 10% tax on Canada for an ad it ran on tariffs during the World Series,” she said. “He imposed a 40% tax on Brazil because its Supreme Court permitted the prosecution of one of its former presidents for criminal activity.”