Will Trump’s Tariffs Survive the Supreme Court?

Summary

Podcast Summary: The Journal.

Episode Title: Will Trump’s Tariffs Survive the Supreme Court?
Date: November 6, 2025
Hosts: Ryan Knudsen, Jessica Mendoza
Guest Experts: James Ramoser (Supreme Court reporter), Sara (contributor)

---

Overview

This episode examines the Supreme Court case challenging the legality of President Trump's sweeping global tariffs, a defining economic policy of his second term. The discussion dives into whether Trump exceeded executive power, the relevant statutes, constitutional questions, the justices’ perspectives, and the far-reaching implications for presidential authority and future U.S. policy.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Background of Trump’s Tariffs

• In April 2025, President Trump enacted major tariffs on nearly all imports (10% baseline; higher on China, Mexico, and Canada) citing two emergencies: the U.S. trade deficit and the fentanyl crisis.
  • Trump (03:01): “April 2, 2025, will forever be remembered as the day American industry was reborn… and the day that we began to make America wealthy again.”
• These tariffs have collected around $90 billion and sparked lawsuits from small businesses and states who claim the tariffs are unlawful and financially damaging.

2. The Legal Debate: What Is the President Allowed to Do?

• Trump’s justification rests on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA, or “Ayipa”), a 1977 law allowing presidential action in foreign emergencies.
  • James Ramoser (03:42): “[IEEPA] gives the President the power to regulate the importation of goods… but nowhere does it say ‘tax’ or ‘tariff.’”
• The challengers argue the power to impose tariffs resides with Congress, not the executive, because IEEPA doesn’t mention tariffs and the Constitution gives taxing power to Congress.
• Three lower courts sided with the challengers, arguing Trump exceeded his authority.

3. Supreme Court Arguments – Key Themes

a. Statutory Interpretation: Does “Regulate” Include “Tariff”?

• Solicitor General John Sauer: Argued that if the President can embargo goods, it makes no sense he cannot simply impose a tariff (“the donut hole problem”).
  • Sauer (07:49): “The phrase regulate importation plainly embraces tariffs, which are among the most traditional and direct methods of regulating importation.”
• Several justices, especially Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan, pressed Sauer to show precedent where the phrase “regulate importation” confers tariff authority. He could not cite a clear example.
  • Barrett (12:32): “Can you point to any other place in the code or any other time in history where that phrase… has been used to confer tariff imposing authority?”
  • Kagan (11:31): “I have about 16 laws in the past that when Congress intended regulate to mean taxing, that it used taxes simultaneously. But it didn’t here.”

b. Major Questions Doctrine

• The doctrine requires clear congressional authorization for any executive action of “vast political or economic significance.”
  • Sara (10:50): “If he’s gonna do something major… it’s gotta be pretty clear that Congress intended for him to have that power.”
  • Ramoser (11:05): “That’s exactly what the Major Questions doctrine says.”
• Comparison is made to the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision striking down Biden’s student loan forgiveness—similar logic may apply.

c. Separation of Powers & Nondelegation

• Justice Neil Gorsuch voiced strong concerns about Congress delegating core powers (like taxation) to the President, arguing this undermines the balance among branches.
  • Gorsuch (15:09): “Could Congress delegate to the President the power to regulate commerce… to lay and collect duties as he sees fit?”
  • Gorsuch (16:26): “What would prohibit Congress from just abdicating all responsibility… for that matter, declare war to the President?”
  • Gorsuch (17:10): “Congress… can’t get this power back once it’s handed it over … It’s a one way ratchet toward… accretion of power in the executive branch and away from… the people’s elected representatives.”
• Sam Alito argued for deference to the president in emergencies, mindful of unpredictable crises.

d. Are All These Emergencies Credible?

• Justice Kagan challenged the proliferation of presidential emergencies.
  • Kagan (09:37): “We’re in emergencies, everything all the time, about, like, half the world.”

e. Scope & Proportionality

• Amy Coney Barrett pressed the government on the breadth and necessity of blanketing nearly every country with tariffs.
  • Barrett (13:19): “These are imposed on… every country. Is it your contention that every country needed to be tariffed… I could see it with some countries, but explain to me why as many… needed to be subject?”

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the odds at the Supreme Court:
  • James Ramoser (19:16): “It was not a great day for Trump at the Supreme Court. …It is difficult for me to count to five justices who signaled they were willing to uphold the tariffs.”
• On implications if Trump loses:
  • Ryan Knudsen (20:44): “If the court rules against Trump’s tariffs, it’s possible everyone who paid a tariff could get a refund… It’s also possible the court might just say these tariffs are illegal going forward.”
• On the possible expansion of presidential power:
  • James Ramoser (21:07): “Presidents would have a newfound tariff authority that prior presidents didn’t think they had… Some future Democratic president could declare a climate change emergency and… impose tariffs on foreign oil.”

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• 00:05: Start of Supreme Court oral arguments in Learning Resources v. Trump
• 02:35: Trump’s tariff proclamation replayed
• 03:01: Details on Trump’s rationale and the legal justification using IEEPA
• 05:02: Trump declares trade deficit and fentanyl emergencies, triggers tariffs
• 07:00: Lower courts rule against Trump
• 07:31: Solicitor General Sauer argues for inclusion of tariffs under “regulate”
• 09:37: Justice Kagan’s skepticism about constant emergencies
• 10:10: Major Questions doctrine explained
• 12:32: Barrett presses on statutory language and historical precedent
• 13:19: Barrett challenges proportionality of across-the-board tariffs
• 14:12: Justice Gorsuch enters with sharp, constitutional questions
• 17:10: Gorsuch expresses concern over expansion of executive power
• 17:52: Alito sympathetic to broad emergency powers for the president
• 19:16: Assessment of the court’s leanings; likely outcome
• 21:07: Hypothetical extension of presidential power (tariffs for climate change)

---

Conclusions & Takeaways

• Skepticism From the Bench: Most justices expressed doubts about Trump’s reading of the statute; skepticism was especially marked among the key conservative “textualists.”
• Congressional vs. Executive Power: The case frontally challenges the ability of the President to interpret broad language as a grant of major new powers, especially those that encroach on core congressional prerogatives.
• Major Questions Loom Large: The Court’s use of the Major Questions doctrine could meaningfully constrain presidential interpretation of emergency statutes.
• Separation of Powers at Stake: The outcome will affect not only Trump’s tariffs but the general balance between Congress and the executive for years to come.
• Broader Implications: If Trump prevails, the door is open for future presidents to unilaterally impose tariffs in the name of any declared emergency—a possibility that concerns both the Court and the broader business and policy community.

---

Overall Tone

The episode is detailed, balanced, and brisk, filled with careful legal analysis and accessible explanations. There’s a slightly skeptical undertone regarding the legal basis for the tariffs, echoing the prevailing sentiment from the Supreme Court.

---

For Listeners

This episode is a nonpartisan look at a pivotal legal battle that could reshape presidential powers and U.S. economic policy for years. If you want to understand how the Supreme Court approaches executive power, constitutional boundaries, and the potential futures of trade and emergency authority, this episode delivers an engaging and insightful primer.

Transcript

[Solicitor General John Sauer]

We will hear argument this morning in case 2412 87, learning resources versus Trump.

[Justice Elena Kagan]

And the consolidated case, General Sauer.

[Ryan Knudsen]

Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in one of the year's most anticipated cases.

[James Ramoser]

The case is about whether Donald Trump exceeded his authority, violated the law when he enacted his sweeping global tariffs at the beginning of his second term.

[Ryan Knudsen]

That's our colleague James Ramoser, who covers the Supreme Court.

[James Ramoser]

It's hard to overstate its importance. It's certainly one of the biggest cases the Supreme Court will hear this term, if not the biggest case.

[Ryan Knudsen]

Hanging in the balance is billions of dollars in tariffs and one of President Trump's central economic policies. But James says the case is about even more than that.

[James Ramoser]

So, as if the case isn't big enough just by virtue of testing Donald Trump's signature economic policy, the case even has broader implications than that because it will affect the balance of power between the president and Congress, not just the current president, but presidents in the future.

[Sara]

And if you could use just one word to characterize the sentiment that the justices displayed yesterday in their questions, what would it be?

[James Ramoser]

If I had to put it in one word, the word I would use is skeptical.

[Ryan Knudsen]

Welcome to the Journal, our show about money, business and power. I'm Ryan knudsen. It's Thursday, November 6th. Coming up on the show, will Trump's tariffs survive the Supreme Court's scrutiny?

[SAP Sponsor]

This episode is presented by SAP. A bad storm hitting your warehouse, incomplete customs forms, a short supply of those little plastic twist ties. These could all deal a crushing setback to your business. But they don't have to. The AI powered capabilities of SAP will help you navigate uncertainty. You can pivot to new suppliers, automate paperwork, and source the twist ties you need so your business can stay unstoppable. Learn [e-mail] Uncertainty.

[Donald Trump]

My fellow Americans, this is liberation day waiting for a long time.

[Ryan Knudsen]

In April, President Trump announced sweeping tariffs.

[Donald Trump]

April 2, 2025, will forever be remembered as the day American industry was reborn, the day America's destiny was reclaimed, and the day that we began to make America wealthy again.

[Sara]

And how did the Trump administration justify this move?

[James Ramoser]

At the time, the Trump administration cited a 1977 law known as the International Emergency Economic Power Powers act, otherwise known.

[Ryan Knudsen]

As Ayipa, which is very fun to say.

[James Ramoser]

Ayipa. Yes, yes. It sounds more like an exclamation rather than a statutory term, but that is how it's known.

[Sara]

Or something my son might say when he's trying to make an animal sound right.

[James Ramoser]

Ayipa. I'm not sure what animal that is?

[Sara]

Yeah, me either. Anyway, sorry. So what is this International Emergency Powers act?

[James Ramoser]

What this 1977 law says is when the President determines that there is a national emergency originating from abroad, the President has the power to take certain steps in regard to foreign imports. And the key language in the statute is that the law gives the President the power to to regulate the importation of goods. And that phrase has long been used by previous presidents to do things like impose embargoes. The statute also gives the President a bunch of other regulatory type powers with regards to foreign imports. There's a key list in the statute of a bunch of different verbs that the President has the power to do.

[Ryan Knudsen]

Those verbs include investigate, block, regulate, direct, and compel, nullify, void.

[James Ramoser]

One of those verbs is not tax. One of those verbs is not tariff. And that's where the problem arises, because Ayipa does not use the T word anywhere in its text.

[Ryan Knudsen]

In order to invoke ipa. Trump declared two emergencies. The first, he said, was a trade deficit emergency, meaning that America buys more things from abroad than it sells. The second was the fentanyl crisis.

[James Ramoser]

And so, in response to trade deficits, he enacted tariffs on virtually every country in the world. And in response to the fentanyl crisis, he enacted punitive tariffs, additional punitive tariffs on three countries, China, Mexico, and Canada.

[Ryan Knudsen]

Today, there's a baseline 10% tariff on virtually all countries and steeper tariffs on others. Some tariffs are under negotiation through August. The government has collected around $90 billion from the tariffs, according to analysts who reviewed Customs and Border Protection data. Not long after the tariffs were put in place, several small businesses and a dozen states sued the Trump administration.

[James Ramoser]

Their argument was quite simple. Their argument was that Trump does not have legal authority to enact these tariffs. The only law, the only statutory authority that he cited was the law that we talked about, iipa, ieepa doesn't use the word tariffs. According to challengers, the vague phrase in the statute regulate imports means regulate. It doesn't mean tax. The Constitution gives the taxing power and therefore the tariff power directly to Congress. The President doesn't have any inherent authority to enact these tariffs. And so if he wants to do it, he has to point to some statute where Congress delegated the tariff authority.

[Sara]

And presumably these companies are also saying, this is creating a hardship for us. We're having to pay this much harder, bigger tax. Our costs are going up significantly, and.

[Ryan Knudsen]

We don't want that.

[James Ramoser]

Yes, they contend that they are suffering quite significant financial harms by virtue of having to pay These steep tariffs, and.

[Ryan Knudsen]

Three lower courts have ruled in their favor and against the Trump administration.

[James Ramoser]

The reasoning of the three lower courts differed in some of the details, but the bottom line is that three lower courts all ruled against Trump and. And that's how the cases got to the supreme court on appeal.

[Solicitor General John Sauer]

Mr. Chief justice, and may it please the court. On April 2nd, President Trump determined that our exploding trade deficits had brought us to the brink of an economic and national security catastrophe.

[Ryan Knudsen]

Yesterday, at the Supreme Court, Solicitor General John Sauer was the first to stand before the judges arguing on behalf of the Trump administration. His argument was pretty simple. The word regulate in that 1977 law, IPA gives the President the power to impose sweeping tariffs.

[Solicitor General John Sauer]

The phrase regulate importation plainly embraces tariffs, which are among the most traditional and direct methods of regulating importation.

[James Ramoser]

And then, you know, as part of the argument, one thing that he says is that everyone agrees that AIPA gives the President the power to enact embargoes, to block trade altogether. And it would be a little funny if Congress said to the President, you have the power to block trade wholesale, to stop all foreign trade, but you don't have the power to simply enact a small tariff on those very same goods that you could block altogether. This is what was referred to in the oral argument as the donut hole problem. Sauer says, under the challenger's interpretation of the statute, where the President has the ability to embargo but not to tariff, that leaves a big, giant, illogical donut hole in the law. And so the Supreme Court shouldn't read it that way. So the Solicitor General argues.

[Sara]

Was there any discussion about whether or not these emergencies that the President cited.

[Ryan Knudsen]

Were legitimate or not?

[James Ramoser]

There was some minimal discussion of that. So I think, as a baseline, the Supreme Court in general is usually not in the business of second guessing presidential determinations about emergencies. The Supreme Court would typically say, we're not the experts on these sorts of things. If the President thinks there's an emergency about fentanyl, if the President thinks there's an emergency about trade deficits, we're not going to really scrutinize that.

[Ryan Knudsen]

Not all justices gave the administration such leeway, though. For instance, liberal Justice Elena Kagan seemed to suggest that the Trump administration has been invoking emergencies all over the place.

[Justice Elena Kagan]

And in fact, you know, we've had cases recently which deals with the President's emergency powers, and it turns out we're in emergencies, everything all the time, about, like, half the world.

[James Ramoser]

And she didn't elaborate. But I interpreted that as her basically saying, like, you know, at some point it becomes implausible if there are just emergencies about the drug trade, emergencies about immigration, emergencies about trade deficit, and lots of other emergencies that Trump is attempting to invoke.

[Ryan Knudsen]

One of the main areas of questioning was over a concept called the Major Questions doctrine.

[James Ramoser]

So the so called Major Questions doctrine is this legal theory that says essentially, if a president or wants to rely on language in a statute to enact a policy of sweeping, vast political or economic significance, the President needs to point to exceedingly clear statutory authority. He can't just take some vague phrase in a statute as the legal basis. Congress needs to be very, very clear if it's going to delegate to the President the, the power to enact a really big policy, essentially.

[Sara]

So if he's gonna do something major that has a huge impact on the country or the economy, it's gotta be pretty clear that Congress intended for him.

[Ryan Knudsen]

To have that power.

[Sara]

You can't just find some little line in some obscure law and say, yeah, this gives me the power to change everything.

[James Ramoser]

Basically, that's exactly what the Major Questions doctrine says.

[Ryan Knudsen]

The most famous recent use of the Major Questions doctrine was when the Supreme Court struck down Biden's student loan forgiveness program, which he had justified by citing an old law and the COVID emergency. Yesterday, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned whether AIPA really does delegate the power to tariff to the President if the law doesn't use the word.

[Justice Elena Kagan]

Could you tell me why it is that when Congress intended to permit a president to regulate by imposing tariffs, it's always use tariff and regulate. I have about 16 laws in the past that when Congress intended regulate to mean taxing, that it used taxes simultaneously. But it didn't here.

[Ryan Knudsen]

Okay, let's talk about the conservative justices now and how they responded. Let's start with Amy Coney Barrett.

[James Ramoser]

Yeah, Barrett is definitely gonna be a critical vote in this case. Of course, she's one of three Trump appointees on the court. So a lot of people were watching her very closely. And she styles herself, like many of the conservatives, as a real true, strict textualist. And so she too was very focused on why the statute doesn't use the word tariff and how important that is.

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

Sara, can I just ask you a question? Can you point to any other place in the code or any other time in history where that phrase together regulate, importation, has been used to confer tariff imposing authority?

[James Ramoser]

And she sort of hammered him on that.

[Solicitor General John Sauer]

I think our argument goes a bit further than that as interpretive matter, because if you look at that history, the.

[Justice Elena Kagan]

History of delegates, could you just answer the Justice's question?

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

Can you identify any statute that use that phrase to confer truth?

[James Ramoser]

At one point where she asked Sauer, look, I understand if Trump thinks there's an emergency regarding trade deficits, but these tariffs are so sweeping, they're imposed on virtually every country in the world. And she asked, is that really proportional? Is that necessary?

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

These are imposed on. I mean, these are kind of across the board. And so is it your contention that every country needed to be tariffed because of threats to the defense and industrial base? I mean, Spain, France, I mean, I could see it with some countries, but explain to me why as many countries needed to be subject to the reciprocal tariff policy as are.

[Sara]

So early on, it looked like things weren't really looking great for Trump.

[James Ramoser]

No, I don't think things were looking great. I mean, Barrett asked some skeptical questions of the Solicitor General, and even Chief Justice John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh asked a few skeptical questions. And then I think the most dramatic moments in the argument came about 45 minutes in when we heard for the first time from Justice Neil Gorsuch.

[Ryan Knudsen]

That's Justice Neil Gorsuch was President Trump's first nominee to the supreme court back in 2017.

[James Ramoser]

He's considered to be one of the Court's most conservative members. He's not often kind of considered a swing vote. And for the first 45 minutes, we didn't hear him say a word. And then all of a sudden, he jumped in, and for 10 minutes straight, he just hammered the John Sauer in a pretty aggressive way. I thought that was just such a key moment because Gorsuch was really invested in this idea of the separation of powers and what this case says about the balance of power between Congress and the President.

[Justice Neil Gorsuch]

So could Congress delegate to the President the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations as he sees fit, to lay and collect duties as he sees fit?

[Solicitor General John Sauer]

We don't assert that here. That would be a much harder case now in 1790.

[Justice Neil Gorsuch]

Isn't that the logic of your. Of your view, though?

[Solicitor General John Sauer]

I don't think so, because we're dealing with a statute that was a carefully crafted compromise. It does have all the limitations that I just talked about.

[Justice Neil Gorsuch]

You're saying you shouldn't. Look, we shouldn't be concerned with. I want to explain to me how you draw the line.

[James Ramoser]

And Gorsters was very concerned about the fact that the taxing power belongs to Congress, not the President. And he seemed to be suggesting, even if AIPA does give the President the power to enact tariffs, that delegation in itself might be unconstitutional. In other words, even if Congress did mean to give the President the power, it might be unconstitutional for Congress to do that. The reason Gorsuch suggested is that Congress should not be able to hand away its core powers like the taxing power. And Gorsuch even used examples. He asked Sauer, could Congress simply delegate to the President the power to declare war? Could Congress simply hand that away?

[Justice Neil Gorsuch]

What would prohibit Congress from just abdicating all responsibility to regulate foreign commerce, for that matter, declare war to the President?

[Solicitor General John Sauer]

We don't contend that he could do that.

[Justice Neil Gorsuch]

If it did, why not?

[Solicitor General John Sauer]

Well, because we're dealing with a statute, again, that has a whole.

[Justice Neil Gorsuch]

I'm not asking about the statute, general. I'm not asking about the statute. I'm asking for your theory of the Constitution and why the major questions of non delegation, what bite it would have in that case, I would say that.

[James Ramoser]

And Gorsuch seemed to be saying, no, of course not, we would never allow that. And similarly, he seemed to suggest we shouldn't allow Congress to delegate away core taxing powers either.

[Ryan Knudsen]

Gorsuch also worried that if Congress were able to delegate its powers to the President, it wouldn't be able to claw it back.

[Justice Neil Gorsuch]

So Congress is, a practical matter, can't get this power back once it's handed it over the President. It's a one way ratchet toward the gradual but continual accretion of power in the executive branch and away from the people's elected representatives.

[James Ramoser]

So this exchange went on for quite a while and it really became clear that Gorsuch's vote not only was in play, but it seemed that Gorsuch was leaning very heavily against the Trump administration. And if Trump can't get Gorsuch's vote, it's very hard to see how Trump gets to five votes to uphold the tariffs here.

[Sara]

Did any of the Justices seem receptive to Sauer's arguments?

[James Ramoser]

I think that the most receptive justice was Sam Alito, certainly one of the most conservative members of the Court. And he asked a series of quite skeptical questions to the challengers when it came time for their lawyers to stand up at the lectern. He was very concerned about making sure that presidents retain the ability to deal with unforeseen emergencies. He was focused on the fact that this 1970s law is an emergency statute. It's meant for the President to deal with emergencies. Congress can't always foresee exactly what those emergencies will be. And so the Court should therefore interpret the Statute broadly to give the president a lot of latitude.

[Ryan Knudsen]

James says that the court's other three conservative justices, Roberts, Thomas, and Kavanaugh, were a little harder to read and asked tough questions of both sides. Yesterday, Trump told Fox News he heard the court case went well and the quote, it would be devastating to our country if we lost that. I know it's impossible to say how the judges are going to rule, but you could obviously get a sense of where they're leaning based on their questions. So how is it looking for Trump's tariffs at the Supreme Court?

[James Ramoser]

Yeah, I think for all the reasons we've talked about, it was not a great day for Trump at the Supreme Court. You know, I don't think it's a shoo in that the court is going to strike down these tariffs wholesale. But it is difficult for me to count to five justices who signaled that they were willing to uphold the tariffs based on their comments at the oral argument. If a majority of the court does rule against Trump, then the next question becomes, how broad or narrow would that ruling be? But I think some justices may be hesitant about issuing a ruling that wipes away such a centerpiece of the president's policy agenda.

[Sara]

Right, because it's hard to imagine, if the Trump administration gets these tariffs struck down by the court, that Trump is just going to give up on this. I mean, as you said earlier, he has been talking for years about how tariffs are the most beautiful word in the English dictionary.

[James Ramoser]

That's exactly right. And he's only amplified his rhetoric in recent days. He has said that these tariffs are a literal matter of life and death for the country. So, yes, it is impossible to imagine that if the court rules against him, Trump is just going to concede defeat and say no more. Tariffs.

[Ryan Knudsen]

If the court rules against Trump's tariffs, it's possible everyone who paid a tariff could get a refund. Though that could be a quite complicated process. It's also possible the court might just say these tariffs are illegal going forward.

[Sara]

If Trump wins this case and the Supreme Court rules in his favor, what would be the implications of that, and.

[Ryan Knudsen]

What would it mean for presidential power?

[James Ramoser]

Certainly, presidents would have a newfound tariff authority that prior presidents didn't think they had. No president before Trump has ever tried to use IEIPA to impose tariffs. And if the Supreme Court says that AIPA actually does, contrary to what people thought, give the president tariffing authority, then other presidents could use that. And so one hypothetical that actually came up in the oral argument is this idea that some future Democratic president could declare a climate change emergency and then use IIPA to impose tariffs on foreign oil, for example. Right. And so these are the kinds of scenarios that I think will be on the court's mind as it grapples with this case.

[Ryan Knudsen]

It's unclear when exactly the court will rule on this case. James said that a case this big is often held until the end of the session in the summer.

[James Ramoser]

That being said, both sides asked the court to take up the case quickly and would like the court to decide quickly. So I think it's very feasible that a ruling could come much, much sooner than next summer, perhaps early 2026 or even by the end of the year, in a matter of weeks or a month or two. And I think the Supreme Court is aware that that the ruling on this question is being highly anticipated by the markets and economic actors. So I think if they know that they're going to issue a clear ruling either upholding or striking down the tariffs, there might be a premium to get out the decision somewhat quickly.

[Ryan Knudsen]

That's all for today. Thursday, November 6 the Journal is a co production of Spotify and the Wall Street Journal. If you like our show, follow us on Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts. We're out every weekday afternoon. Thanks for listening. See you tomorrow.