President Trump Asks Supreme Court To Uphold Tariffs

Summary

NPR Politics Podcast

Episode: President Trump Asks Supreme Court To Uphold Tariffs

Date: September 8, 2025
Hosts: Ashley Lopez, Danielle Kurtzleben, Mara Liasson

---

Episode Overview

This episode explores the escalating legal and political battle over President Trump's sweeping use of tariffs—specifically, those imposed under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA). The Supreme Court is being asked to decide if Trump’s tariffs on certain countries’ goods are lawful after a series of lower court rulings found them illegal. The hosts dive into how this landed before the high court, what’s at stake for Trump's executive powers, and what the outcome could mean for the economy, politics, and U.S. trade relations.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Background: How Tariffs Ended Up Before the Supreme Court

[01:03–02:40]

• Types of Tariffs:
  • Section 232 tariffs on goods (like steel and aluminum) are not at issue here.
  • Tariffs at issue are those enacted against specific countries using IEEPA powers (“IEPA tariffs”).
• Legal Challenge:
  • Businesses and state AGs sued, arguing IEEPA doesn’t authorize such tariffs.
  • The Court of International Trade and then a federal appeals court both ruled against Trump’s use of IEEPA for tariffs.
• Supreme Court Appeal:
  • The White House urges the Supreme Court to rule on whether the IEEPA supports these tariffs and if Congress improperly delegated legislative authority to the president.

Notable Quote:

"Trump imposed all of those tariffs… Then a handful of businesses and state attorneys general, they took the case to the Court of International Trade… And that court found…these tariffs are unlawful. They’re too sweeping."
— Danielle Kurtzleben [01:16]

---

2. Legal Questions Before the Court

[02:51–05:53]

• Key Issues:
  • IEEPA doesn’t specifically mention tariffs; tariffs are traditionally a Congressional power.
  • Historically, presidents have used IEEPA for sanctions, not tariffs.
  • The Supreme Court must determine if applying IEEPA this way is constitutional or if it constitutes legislative overreach by the executive.
• Possible Outcomes:
  • All or none of the tariffs could be struck down.
  • The ruling could be narrow, specifying some tariffs are acceptable and others not.
  • Potential for a procedural ruling (similar to the "Muslim ban" case), forcing Trump to find another path for tariffs.

Notable Quote:

"The biggest question… is whether the Supreme Court is willing to give Trump the additional expansion of the executive that he wants."
— Mara Liasson [03:35]

---

3. Political Stakes for Trump and the Court

[06:59–08:20]

• If Supreme Court sides with Trump:
  • Seen as huge political and legal victory, furthering the MAGA movement’s agenda.
• If Supreme Court rules against Trump:
  • Would represent the first meaningful judicial rebuke to Trump’s expansive view of executive power.
• Tariffs’ Party Politics:
  • Tariffs are less ideologically neat; some Republicans and business groups object, while Trump’s base supports them.

Notable Quote:

"If the court sides with Trump, huge victory… If they vote against him, it would be also huge that they were willing to break with Trump."
— Mara Liasson [07:10]

---

4. Economic Impact of the Tariffs—And Can Trump Do It Another Way?

[10:00–13:46]

• Tariff Revenue Up—But at a Cost:
  • Tariffs have raised $30 billion/month, up from $100 billion total in 2024.
  • This is government revenue collected from U.S. consumers paying higher prices.
  • Evidence does not show tariffs delivering on Trump’s promises to boost manufacturing.
  • Manufacturing has contracted for six straight months, and business owners report tariffs making things worse.
• Alternative Paths:
  • Trump could seek Congressional authorization for tariffs (unlikely, given his views on executive power and Congressional reluctance).
  • Other trade laws could offer narrow tariff options (lower percentages, time-limited).
• Political Risks:
  • Higher consumer prices could spur negative campaign ads and backlash in 2026.

Notable Quotes:

"Right now they're bringing in around $30 billion a month…in a few months…what it took in all of last year."
— Danielle Kurtzleben [11:55]

"Polls show that the American people don't like tariffs…they seem to understand that they're going to pay for them."
— Mara Liasson [13:46]

---

5. If the Tariffs Get Struck Down: Logistical and Legal Challenges

[14:17–15:55]

• Repaying Tariff Revenue:
  • Potentially requires businesses to individually file court claims—a massive logistical challenge.
  • Universal injunctions are no longer allowed; courts cannot issue blanket orders to repay all.
• Ongoing Uncertainty:
  • Country-by-country IEEPA tariffs remain in effect pending the Supreme Court’s decision.
  • Product-by-product Section 232 tariffs continue unaffected by these cases.

Notable Quote:

"This has raised legal questions about how paying back tariffs would work…a massive logistical headache."
— Danielle Kurtzleben [14:32]

---

6. Broader Picture and Trade Landscape

[15:48–17:07]

• No Formal Trade Agreements:
  • Trump’s tariffs and trade threats have mostly resulted in “handshake deals,” not binding treaties.
  • Announcements of foreign investment often have no formal documents or are disputed by partner countries.

Notable Quote:

"He has not yet made a single formal trade agreement on any of these tariffs. These are handshake deals…These are not treaties."
— Mara Liasson [16:16]

---

Memorable Moments

• Supreme Court's Relationship with Trump:
  • Continued reflection on how the current Court typically sides with Trump, but tariffs could scramble familiar ideological divisions. [07:34]
• Economic Reality vs. Political Rhetoric:
  • Despite large tariff revenues, evidence shows negative impacts for U.S. manufacturers and skepticism from mainstream economists about any future benefit. [12:32]
• Logistical Nightmare of Repaying Tariffs:
  • The administrative burden and legal confusion if courts require large-scale repayment of tariff revenue, highlighting the complexity of undoing expansive policies. [14:32]

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• [01:03] – Introduction to Trump’s tariff policy and legal background
• [02:51] – Constitutional and statutory questions before the Supreme Court
• [06:59] – Analysis of the political consequences for Trump and the Court
• [10:00] – Economic realities of the tariffs’ revenue and impact
• [13:46] – Public opinion and the (lack of) economic upside of tariffs
• [14:32] – Possible logistical chaos if tariffs are overturned
• [15:55] – Status summary: What tariffs are still in place today?
• [16:16] – Lack of formal trade deals; the ad hoc nature of Trump’s agreements

---

Tone & Language

• Conversational, thoughtful, and detailed, grounded in reporting and analysis but open about what’s uncertain or unprecedented.
• The reporters balance wonky legal insights with accessible political context, providing a well-rounded picture for listeners of any political background.

---

This episode offers a deep dive into not just the legal technicalities of the current Supreme Court challenge, but also the broader implications for presidential power, the actual and political impact of Trump's trade policies, and what the future might hold for U.S. trade relationships. The discussion is nuanced, marking the rare areas where ideology, law, and economics don’t fall into easily predictable patterns.

Transcript

[NPR Narrator]

Military commanders, intelligence officials, diplomatic power players. They know things you may not about where the world is headed. And we will pull back the curtain on what they're thinking on sources and methods. NPR's new National Security podcast. Our team will help you understand America's shifting role in the world. Listen to Sources and Methods from npr.

[Tracy from Livermore]

Hi, this is Tracy from Livermore, California. I just submitted my first job application since becoming a stay at Home Mom 11 years ago. This podcast was recorded at 1:23pm Eastern.

[Ashley Lopez]

Time on Monday, September 8, 2025.

[Tracy from Livermore]

Things may have changed by the time you hear it. Like I might have to start wearing something other than yoga pants again.

[Danielle Kurtzleben]

Okay.

[Tracy from Livermore]

Enjoy the show.

[Cook Unity Ad Voice]

Wow.

[Danielle Kurtzleben]

Congratulations.

[Ashley Lopez]

Big life change.

[Danielle Kurtzleben]

And good luck also. Yeah, good luck.

[Mara Liasson]

Hey there.

[Ashley Lopez]

It's the NPR Politics Podcast. I'm Ashley Lopez. I cover politics.

[Danielle Kurtzleben]

I'm Danielle Kurtzleben. I cover the White House.

[Mara Liasson]

And I'm Mara Liasson, senior national political correspondent.

[Ashley Lopez]

And today on the show, will the Supreme Court let President Trump continue with his current tariff policy? Danielle, a federal appeals court recently ruled that some of Trump's tariffs are illegal. Can you catch us up, though, on how we got here?

[Danielle Kurtzleben]

All right. Let's start with the very basics this term. Trump has imposed a lot of tariffs. We all know this. And there are two main types of tariffs he has imposed. There are tariffs on specific goods like his aluminum and steel tariffs, automobiles. Those are called Section 232 tariffs. That's named for the particular part of a particular law that authorizes them. We're going to set those aside. Those are not the ones we're talking about here. The other types of tariffs he's imposed are on different countries goods. So those are authorized under the International Economic Emergency Powers act, or iepa. That's what I'm going to be calling them today. You're going to hear IEPA a lot. So when Trump had that big Rose Garden ceremony in April that he called Liberation Day, he held up that big table. Those are IPA tariffs. When he posts a letter on social media saying I'm imposing 50% tariffs on Brazilian goods, that's IIPA. That is what we are talking about. So Trump imposed all of those tariffs on all of these countries. And then a handful of businesses and state attorneys general, they took the case to the Court of International Trade. And that court found earlier this year that, yeah, these tariffs are unlawful. They're too sweeping. They are not authorized under ipa. So the Trump administration brought it to a federal appeals court and they found seven to four that, yeah, these tariffs are unlawful so now the White House has taken this to the Supreme Court and said, you really need to judge on this right now.

[Ashley Lopez]

Yeah, yeah. And the Supreme Court, we should say, has been kind of on a run siding with the administration so far. So, Mara, I mean, I wonder what big questions the court will be taking up as it looks at this case.

[Mara Liasson]

Well, one of the things that people who think the Trump move is unconstitutional say is that AIPA doesn't mention the word tariffs and that tariffs are a congressional job. They're a legislative branch responsibility. Now, over time, Congress has given a lot of tariff power away to the executive. So that's one of the things they say in the past when presidents have used ipa, they've used them for sanctions and not tariffs. Although Donald Trump's really conflating tariffs and sanctions because he often uses tariffs as a kind of punishment for things that have nothing to do with economic policy at all. So the biggest question overriding this entire case is whether the Supreme Court is willing to give Trump the additional expansion of the executive that he wants. In many dozens and dozens of ways, Donald Trump has been expanding the power of the executive, and the Supreme Court has yet to rule on all of that. They have given him almost total control over the executive branch. They've allowed him to fire heads of independent agencies. They've allowed him to fire tens of thousands of federal workers, but they haven't said whether he can take over powers that the Constitution specifically grants to Congress.

[Danielle Kurtzleben]

Yeah, that's right. I mean, there are a lot of questions that the Supreme Court theoretically could take up in this case. For example, what constitutes an economic emergency? And is Trump correct in naming particular things an economic emergency? For example, some of these tariffs he has imposed, saying this tariff is to get China, Mexico, and Canada to crack down on the fentanyl trade. And the Court for International Trade said that's. That's not an economic emergency, or like, that is not a valid use of iep. You can't do that. From what I understand, talking to legal experts, the Supreme Court is not going to be focused so much on the what is an emergency? The Supreme Court is going to be focused on what the White House has asked. And what the White House has asked is, did I EAPA authorize these tariffs? And if so, did IIPA unconstitutionally delegate legislative authority to the president so they could get at that constitutional question that Mara is talking about right there? We don't know exactly what the scope of the ruling could be. I mean, they could find all the tariffs unlawful. They could find all of the tariffs, totally fine. Or they could find something in between. They could say, certain ones are fine, certain aren't. Here's the scope, we're okay with. We don't know what they could do.

[Mara Liasson]

And one of the things to keep in mind is something that they did in Trump's first term. When he tried to put in the Muslim ban to ban people from Muslim countries coming to the United States. The Supreme Court didn't say, no, you can't do that. They just said, you have gone about this in the wrong way. And he had to come up with a different law to justify it or a different plan, which might very well happen here. We might end up with most of the same tariffs in effect, but not through ipa.

[Danielle Kurtzleben]

Yes, that is.

[Mara Liasson]

That's one of the possible outcomes.

[Danielle Kurtzleben]

That is a possible outcome, yes. If the Supreme Court, let's say the Supreme Court did the most extreme possible thing and said, none of these tariffs are lawful, get rid of them all. If that happened, I asked one economist, okay, how big of a blow is that to Trump's economic agenda? He said, big, but not really fatal because it would, first of all, it would strike down these country by country tariffs. Those 232 tariffs on aluminum, steel, all those different goods, those would stay in effect. Those are not affected here. Right. But also, there are a number of other laws Trump could use to try to impose tariffs. Now, those tariffs might not be as sweeping as I EA tariffs. There's one law, for example, that allows you to impose tariffs of up to 15% for up to 150 days. So some of these laws might limit the tariffs. But there are a number of ways Trump could still put these tariffs in place, or this is a key point, threaten tariffs. Because a big part of what he's doing is threatening tariffs, saying, hey, eu, if you don't do xyz, I'm going to impose these tariffs. He's using them in many ways as a stick. And with these other laws, he could still do that.

[Mara Liasson]

Yeah.

[Ashley Lopez]

I do want to pivot away a little bit from the legal stakes here and ask about the political stakes for Trump. Like, what do we think, like, are the sort of political ramifications if the court sides either way?

[Mara Liasson]

Well, if the court sides with Trump, huge victory. And as he's been saying all along, he's almost saying it doesn't really matter what these lower courts do because my Supreme Court is gonna be for me. So I think it would be a big victory if they vote for him. If they vote against him, it would be also huge that they were willing to break with Trump. So that would be a big deal.

[Danielle Kurtzleben]

Too, just to pivot off of that. One fascinating thing about all of this, though, is that, yes, the Supreme Court has been very, very, very willing to side with President Trump. Tariffs are, however, not a neatly ideological topic, like, for example, abortion. I mean, justices are asked at their confirmation hearings, how do you feel about abortion, how did you feel about Roe v. Wade, that sort of thing. Tariffs have never, at least not in recent memory, split neatly among ideological lines. The MAGA movement really likes Trump's tariffs, but old school Republicans, Chamber of Commerce Republicans very much do not. So I am quite curious how these justices, especially the conservative justices, feel about these tariffs.

[Ashley Lopez]

All right. We're going to take a quick break. More in a moment.

[Cook Unity Ad Voice]

This message comes from Cook Unity. Fuel your day with fresh, fully cooked meals from award winning chefs. Every dish is crafted with hand picked ingredients and delivered to your door. Commitment Free subscriptions start as low as $11ameal. Skip, pause or cancel anytime. Go to cookunity.com code or enter code code before checkout for free Premium meals for life cookunity.com code or enter code code before checkout. Terms and conditions apply.

[Throughline Podcast Narrator]

On the Throughline podcast from npr, immigration enforcement might be more visible now, but this moment didn't begin with President Trump's second inauguration or even his first, a series from Throughline about how immigration became political and a cash cow. Listen to Throughline in the NPR app or wherever you get your podcasts.

[Ian]

Hey everybody, it's Ian and Mike, the hosts of how to Do Everything.

[Mike]

That's the show where we take your questions and find overqualified experts to answer them.

[Ian]

Alex asked us to write his out of office email message, but we don't.

[Mike]

Know how to write. So we called up US Poet Laureate Ada Limon.

[Danielle Kurtzleben]

Is this National Public Radio?

[Ian]

Sort of.

[Mike]

Technically, yes.

[Ian]

Season two just dropped. Listen to the how to Do Everything podcast from npr.

[Ashley Lopez]

And we're back. Mara, tariffs have been a central part of Trump's policies and I should say we're still waiting to see if the Supreme Court will take up this case. But let's say the courts do knock back this part of Trump's economic policy. Like what would that impact actually be?

[Mara Liasson]

Well, it might not be very much if he can find another way to impose tariffs. Just like with the Muslim ban, he figured out a different way to do it because the Supreme Court told him to. But if they do rule against him, that would be a big deal because he expects they'll rule for him. And it would be the first time that the court has actually pushed back against Trump's effort to expand the powers of the executive. So that would be a big deal.

[Danielle Kurtzleben]

Now, the other way that Trump could get his tariffs through is the old fashioned way, by asking Congress to pass tariffs, because the Constitution gives Congress the power to impose duties to levy taxes. So he could ask them. Now, how would that go? On the one hand, the Republican Congress has been very compliant, has kind of rolled over for pretty much anything Donald Trump wants. On the other hand, I personally am quite curious how that would go, because tariffs raise prices. There are a lot of businesses that are very nervous about tariffs or past nervous. They're upset about them. And so should prices go up? Should this make life more difficult for people economically? You can bet, Bet that in 2026, a bajillion campaign ads would come out and say, senator, so and so voted for Trump's tariffs, and now your groceries are more expensive. Do you really want to vote for them?

[Mara Liasson]

I would be surprised if Donald Trump asked Congress for that because that would mean that he acknowledges their Article 1 preeminence in this matter. And that's not part of his view of the presidency. As he says, Article 2 gives me the right to do whatever I want.

[Danielle Kurtzleben]

Yeah.

[Mara Liasson]

And because I am the president and.

[Ashley Lopez]

Well, that does bring me, though, to a point that you made, Danielle. Like the big here is, well, how popular is this going to be? We are getting a better sense now of how the tariffs are impacting the economy. I mean, what do we know about how this is working and what the political cost might be for this plan to continue?

[Danielle Kurtzleben]

Well, we knew a limited amount, but look, Trump had a few goals for these tariffs when he first laid them out. One was increase government revenue. And that is the one that we can answer the most concretely. Yeah. Tariffs have led to more government revenue. Right now they're bringing in around $30 billion a month, which is a lot. In all of 2024, the government brought in around $100 billion in tariff revenue. So long story short, the government is taking in in a few months right now what it took in in all of last year.

[Mara Liasson]

Now, that's from American consumers.

[Danielle Kurtzleben]

Correct.

[Mara Liasson]

They've in a sense, raised taxes on imports, so of course they're getting more revenue.

[Danielle Kurtzleben]

Yes, that's absolutely right. So let's go to the macroeconomic side of it then, because that's very pertinent to this. It's hard to know exactly what tariffs are doing right now because all of this Other stuff is happening. For example, we have fewer immigrant workers in the US Right now. There are fewer government jobs than there were before Donald Trump took office. So there's a lot of cross currents. But long story short, it does not appear. I'm going to caveat this a lot. It does not appear from the evidence we have that these are doing what Trump wants. For example, manufacturing employment, which is dead center of what Trump cares about here, it is not climbing. The Institute for Supply Management, which is a group that keeps an eye on manufacturing. In their latest report, they said that the manufacturing sector contracted in August for the sixth consecutive month. And in the qualitative section of that report, where they said to manufacturers, business owners, hey, how are things going? A lot of them responded, well, tariffs are making life harder. So right now, it doesn't appear tariffs are doing a lot positive. Now, that said, if you're Donald Trump, the argument you would make is, well, it takes a while for factories to get built. We might see these benefits come in the future. But most mainstream economists would tell you, we do not expect that.

[Mara Liasson]

Well, it's not just that they take a long time to be built. We would see investments in factories, even if they haven't been built yet. We're not seeing that. And this is something that Donald Trump promised. The other thing is that polls show that the American people don't like tariffs. They seem to understand that they're going to pay for them. And that doesn't mean that this is gonna hurt Donald Trump politically, because polls are much less important for our understanding of Trump's political strength. But the American people are against this particular policy.

[Ashley Lopez]

The other question we have here is, like, what happens if, let's say the Supreme Court says, yeah, you can't do this. What happens if the administration has to repay tens of billions of dollars in tariff revenue? Like, what can you tell us about how this would actually work? Danielle?

[Danielle Kurtzleben]

This is very thorny, and we don't know a lot about it. And also, what this might look like has changed over the last few months because the Court of International Trade released that ruling that said, hey, these tariffs are illegal. And then later, the Supreme Court said that universal injunctions can't happen, which means a federal court can't lay out a decision that affects everybody everywhere. The long story short is this. This has raised legal questions about how paying back tariffs would work. That could make this a massive logistical headache, because it might not be that the tariffs are ruled illegal, and then Customs and Border Protection, which takes in the tariffs, just spits out A whole bunch of money to a bunch of businesses, which would be hard in the first place. Instead, it might be that businesses that have paid these tariffs would have to individually go to court and say, hey, we paid $50,000 in tariffs in the last few months. We would like that back. You can imagine the logistical nightmare that that could be. Again, this is a possibility. We do not know how this might look. But what we do know from what legal experts say is that it could just be logistically crazy.

[Ashley Lopez]

So, Daniel, can you give me like a big picture of like, where tariffs are right now? Like, what does the landscape look like?

[Danielle Kurtzleben]

Sure. So there is a list of those product by product tariffs that are in place, for example, steel and aluminum, certain copper products, that sort of thing. Then there are all of these country by country tariffs. While these court cases have been going through the judicial system, those country by country tariffs are still in effect.

[Mara Liasson]

And a very important point, he has not yet made a single formal trade agreement on any of these tariffs. These are handshake deals. These are things that Trump has been able to announce, oh, X country is going to be investing x trillions of dollars in the United States. These are not like the U.S. mexico, Canada trade agreement. These have been announced by Trump. There's no formal legal paperwork on them. These are not treaties. These are handshake agreements.

[Danielle Kurtzleben]

Right. In most cases, we have not even seen details. We've seen some stuff on paper regarding the UK Regarding the eu but in general, there have been, you know, Trump's announcements. There have been some news reports. There has been reporting from other countries about other countries disputing what Trump has said. But no, we have not seen written down here are what Vietnam and the US have agreed to or many of these other countries.

[Ashley Lopez]

All right, let's leave it there for today. I'm Ashley Lopez. I cover politics.

[Danielle Kurtzleben]

I'm Danielle Kurtzleben. I cover the White House.

[Mara Liasson]

And I'm Mara Liasson, senior national politician.

[Ashley Lopez]

And thank you for listening to the NPR Politics podcast.

[Ian]

On how to Do Everything. We take your questions and find phenomenal experts to answer them because we love you. Elizabeth asked us, how do I exercise while I'm in my car?

[Mike]

And because we love Elizabeth, we rang up our favorite bodybuilder turned actor turned governor turned actor. Hello, Arnold.

[Mara Liasson]

Hello.

[Mike]

We're here to talk to you today from npr.

[Throughline Podcast Narrator]

Very nice.

[Mike]

Season two just dropped. Listen to how to do everything from npr.

[Here and Now Anytime Narrator]

Immigration raids, masked ICE agents, Operation Patriot. Our podcast Here and Now Anytime is looking at Trump's agenda of mass deportation through the eyes of one state.

[Mike]

I'm coming to Boston. I'm bringing hell with me.

[Here and Now Anytime Narrator]

Listen to the podcast here and now, anytime from NPR and wbur.