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.