WASHINGTON (FN) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday wrestled with the limits of presidential power as it heard arguments over whether former President Donald Trump overstepped his authority by imposing sweeping tariffs under a decades-old emergency law.
At issue is the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 statute intended to let presidents respond to extraordinary threats to national security. Trump invoked it to justify tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of imports, arguing that trade imbalances and illicit flows of goods endangered U.S. economic stability.
Critics say the move blurred the constitutional line between Congress and the executive branch. “This is fundamentally a separation-of-powers dispute,” said Prof. Laura Bennett, a constitutional law expert at Georgetown University. “If the Court upholds this use of IEEPA, it effectively transfers Congress’s taxing and tariff powers to the presidency.”
During oral arguments, several justices signaled concern about unchecked executive authority. Justice Elena Kagan warned that the government’s interpretation “turns an emergency statute into a standing license for trade policymaking,” while Justice Brett Kavanaugh questioned whether “economic emergencies” could be declared at will.
Government counsel Andrew Miller argued that the president must retain flexibility to respond to fast-moving global crises. But Michael Tan, a trade attorney representing importers challenging the tariffs, said IEEPA “was never designed to let the president impose taxes by proclamation.”
Legal analysts say the Court’s ruling could redefine the boundary between national security law and trade regulation. If the tariffs are struck down, the U.S. could be forced to refund billions in collected duties.
“This case isn’t just about Trump,” said constitutional attorney Rachel Ortiz. “It’s about how far any president can stretch emergency powers before they become unconstitutional.”
A decision is expected by mid-2026, with potential ripple effects across trade law, constitutional jurisprudence, and executive-power doctrine.
