Majority of US Supreme Court justices appear to question Trump’s tariff powers

In a packed marble courtroom, the US Supreme Court on Wednesday heard oral arguments on what could be the most consequential trade ruling in a generation, grilling President Donald Trump’s administration over whether a 48-year-old emergency law effectively gave the White House virtually unlimited power over trade.

At stake: US$90 billion already paid by American importers, trade deals with partners across the globe, billions more to come, and the delicate balance of power between Pennsylvania Avenue and Capitol Hill.

The next step in the highly consequential case before the highest US court is a private conference that will see the justices take a preliminary vote on the outcome. It is not clear when the court will announce its final decision.

Analysts said that Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch and Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, both conservative Trump appointees, appeared to be the swing votes on the conservative-majority court.

Gorsuch in particular seemed concerned about granting limitless power to presidents.

The first half of the oral arguments crackled with tension as justices signalled deep scepticism that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) was ever intended to serve as an all-purpose trade weapon. IEEPA has been used dozens of times by presidents since it was passed in 1977, generally for more conventional emergencies such as the 1970s Iran hostage crisis.

Trump is the first president to use it to justify imposing expansive tariffs, which challengers argue is unconstitutional. Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative member of the court, appeared to cast doubt when he noted that it had never been used before to justify tariffs.