Supreme Court Weighs Trump’s Tariffs And The Limits Of Presidential Power

Summary

---

Supreme Court Weighs Trump’s Tariffs And The Limits Of Presidential Power

NPR Politics Podcast | Released: November 6, 2025

---

Main Theme

This episode explores the Supreme Court case evaluating the legality of President Trump’s extensive use of tariffs during his second term, specifically through the lens of presidential authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEPA” or “IPA”). The discussion delves into whether such presidential power is constitutional, how the Court may rule, the broad implications for economic policy, and what this means in the larger context of executive authority.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Background on Trump’s Tariffs and Use of the IEPA

• Danielle Kurtzleben recaps that President Trump imposes tariffs broadly and unilaterally, often via social media, targeting countries with specific percentage increases (01:32).
• Trump’s main legal basis is the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEPA), which allows the President to act during a national emergency.
• “He goes on social media and says the tariff on x country is 50%, 40, 30, whatever.” – Danielle Kurtzleben (01:32)
• Liberation Day tariffs: Announced on April 2, using IEPA, citing the US trade deficit as an emergency (02:00).
• Also used IEPA to impose tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China, justifying them as responses to the fentanyl crisis.
• Remarkably, these moves bypass investigations and congressional approval, encroaching on congressional powers of taxation (02:52).

2. The Legal Challenge & Arguments at the Supreme Court

• Carrie Johnson explains that challengers argue IEPA was never intended to grant power to impose tariffs, particularly as tariffs are not explicitly mentioned in the statute (03:07).
• Tariffs are, in effect, taxes—a power reserved for Congress.
• Central debate: Does the phrase “regulate importation” in the law confer the power to impose tariffs?
• Memorable moment: Justice Kavanaugh likens the legal distinction to a “doughnut hole,” prompting lawyer Benjamin Gutman to retort, “It’s not a doughnut hole. It’s a different kind of pastry,” causing laughter in the court (04:28 – 04:53).

3. The Unusual Political Alliance Challenging Trump’s Tariffs

• The opposition is bipartisan. Conservative and libertarian groups, retired conservative Judge Michael McConnell, and former Obama administration officials (e.g., Neal Katyal) all support challenges to Trump’s approach (05:23).
• “This issue has not fallen evenly along political or partisan lines in the legal community at all.” – Carrie Johnson (05:50)

4. Trump Administration’s Defense

• Solicitor General John Sauer (for Trump) asserts the President possesses this authority, arguing tariffs have regulatory rather than revenue-raising intent (05:58).
• The administration claims if tariffs are not paid, it signals success by driving American purchase of domestic goods.
• "If this tariff is never paid, that means it worked, because that means Americans are not paying the tariff because they're buying American.” – Sauer, via Danielle Kurtzleben (06:16)
• However, as Kurtzleben notes, Trump publicly frames tariffs as revenue generators for the US.

5. Supreme Court Dynamics & Prognosis

• Conservative justices, including Trump appointee Neil Gorsuch, show skepticism.
• Biden’s Solicitor General, Elizabeth Prelogar, reportedly described the case as a “coin toss” due to the complexity and the fact that many tariffs are already in effect (07:32).

6. Potential Impacts of a Supreme Court Ruling

• If the Court rules against Trump:
  • It would invalidate roughly half of his tariff agenda (those under IEPA), but other tariff-enabling statutes with stricter requirements could still be used (10:03).
  • The possibility of refunding up to $150 billion in tariff revenue. Implementation could range from limited to widespread, with logistical and legal challenges (10:55).
• Justice Amy Coney Barrett raises concerns about the complexity of potential refunds (12:03).

7. Major Questions Doctrine

• Neal Katyal invokes the “major questions doctrine”—Congress must be clear if it intends to delegate significant economic powers.
• The Court’s recent use of this doctrine includes limiting Biden’s actions on student loan forgiveness and climate change. Will it now curtail Trump’s tariff power? (12:28 – 13:37)

8. Big-Picture: Presidential Power and Congressional Oversight

• The IEPA was designed in the late 1970s to limit executive power after Nixon—but is now being used to expand it (13:57).
• Justice Gorsuch expresses concern over the “ratcheting” of authority toward the President, highlighting Congress’s inability to reclaim power once delegated (15:42).
• “Congress can't take that back without a super majority...The President's a one way ratchet toward the gradual but continual accretion of power in the executive branch.” – Justice Gorsuch (15:42 – 16:25)

9. Broader Effects on US Trade & International Relations

• Trump has used tariffs as leverage to negotiate international deals—though the transparency and efficacy of these deals remain unclear (17:37).
• The hosts note ongoing debate about how this impacts America’s global standing (18:28).

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “He goes on social media and says the tariff on x country is 50%, 40, 30, whatever.” – Danielle Kurtzleben (01:32)
• Justice Kavanaugh: “Why would a rational Congress say, yeah, we're going to give the President the power to shut down trade?...But can't do a 1% tariff. That doesn't seem to have a lot of common sense behind it.”
  Benjamin Gutman: “It's not a doughnut hole. It's a different kind of pastry.” (04:28 – 04:53)
• “This issue has not fallen evenly along political or partisan lines in the legal community at all.” – Carrie Johnson (05:50)
• “The president doesn't stop talking about how much money he's making for America.” – Tamara Keith (07:13)
• “It was going to be very difficult to unscramble the eggs since these tariffs had already gone into effect.” – Elizabeth Prelogar (paraphrased by Carrie Johnson) (07:32)
• “If there are refunds, what does that look like?... There could be a process by which companies all over the country only get a refund if they file a lawsuit, which would be legal chaos.” – Danielle Kurtzleben (11:10)
• Justice Barrett: “And then if you win, tell me how the reimbursement process would work. Would it be a complete mess?...It seems to me like it could be a mess.” (12:03)
• “Congress can't take that back without a super majority... The President's a one way ratchet toward the gradual but continual accretion of power in the executive branch.” – Justice Gorsuch (15:42 – 16:25)

---

Timeline of Key Segments

| Timestamp | Segment | |------------|------------------------------------------------------| | 01:15 | Introduction: Supreme Court and Trump’s tariff policy| | 01:32-02:55| How Trump uses tariffs; introduction of IEPA | | 03:07 | Legal challenge arguments: IEPA and congressional power | | 04:28 | Pastry analogy: Tariffs as taxes vs. regulation | | 05:23 | Unusual political alliances in opposition | | 05:58 | Trump administration’s legal defense | | 07:13 | Discussion of Supreme Court dynamics & unpredictability| | 10:03 | Potential impact of a ruling against Trump | | 10:55 | Complications with refunding tariff revenue | | 12:03 | Justice Barrett questions the practicality of refunds| | 12:28-13:37| Introduction of the major questions doctrine | | 13:57 | Discussion of executive power: origins and trajectory| | 15:42 | Justice Gorsuch’s warning on unchecked executive power | | 17:37 | Tariffs as Trump’s deal-making tool—international effects | | 18:28 | Global implications and unanswered questions |

---

Tone & Language

The episode maintains NPR’s characteristic analytical, accessible, and lightly conversational tone. The hosts explain complex legal principles in a relatable way while highlighting the drama and stakes at the Supreme Court. Exchanges are collegial and occasionally laced with humor (e.g., the pastry analogy).

---

Conclusion

While the episode is anchored in the specifics of President Trump’s tariffs and their fate at the Supreme Court, it powerfully frames the case as emblematic of a bigger, bipartisan struggle over the reach of presidential authority versus congressional oversight. The outcome, as discussed, could dramatically reshape presidential power, economic policy, and US political institutions for years to come.

Transcript

[Danielle Kurtzleben]

I'm Rachel Martin. If you're tired of small talk, check out the Wild Card Podcast. I invite influential thinkers to open up.

[Tamara Keith]

About the big topics we all think about, but rarely talk about.

[Danielle Kurtzleben]

Tune in this fall to hear Mel.

[Tamara Keith]

Robbins, Malala Yousafzai, and Brene Brown talk.

[Danielle Kurtzleben]

About everything from grief and God to ambition and forgiveness. Watch or listen on the NPR app, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hi, my name's Oscar, and right now I'm sitting outside of an LSAT testing center in Anaheim, California, because five months ago my that before I can propose, I need to fulfill my lifelong dream of going to law school.

[Tamara Keith]

Oh my God.

[Danielle Kurtzleben]

Becoming an attorney. This podcast was recorded at that was.

[Tamara Keith]

A journey, 1:03pm Eastern Time on Thursday, November 6th.

[Danielle Kurtzleben]

Things may have changed by the time you hear it, but hopefully I'll be one step closer to fulfilling that dream. Enjoy the show.

[Tamara Keith]

Well, I am proud of your commitment to commitment in many ways.

[Danielle Kurtzleben]

No kidding. I'll say. I took the LSAT once. It's a hard one.

[Carrie Johnson]

Look forward to seeing you in the federal court, sir.

[Danielle Kurtzleben]

Yeah.

[Tamara Keith]

Hey there. It's the NPR Politics podcast. I'm Tamara Keith. I cover the White House.

[Carrie Johnson]

I'm Carrie Johnson. I cover the Justice Department.

[Danielle Kurtzleben]

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

[Tamara Keith]

And today on the show, the Supreme Court considers President Trump's tariff policy and key questions about presidential power. But before we get to the arguments, Danielle, take us back to Liberation Day and remind us of how President Trump is using tariffs in this second term.

[Danielle Kurtzleben]

Sure. Well, the short answer to how Trump is using tariffs is however he wants to. He has imposed widespread tariffs and he announces them just at the drop of a hat. He goes on social media and says the tariff on x country is 50%, 40, 30, whatever.

[Tamara Keith]

I'm remembering he saw an ad featuring Ronald Reagan a couple weeks ago and bam, Canada gets a 10% additional tariff.

[Danielle Kurtzleben]

Absolutely. And what he's doing to impose these country by country tariffs is using a law called the International Emergency Economic Powers act, which we're going to be calling IPA today. The that is the law he is using to justify these country by country tariffs. That law allows a president to take certain measures. It gives the president certain broad powers when there is an emergency. So you alluded to Liberation Day. Trump used IPA to do, for example, the tariffs that he announced in the rose Garden on April 2. All those pictures of Trump holding up a big table of tariff rates, those are the Liberation Day tariffs. He used IPA to impose those. And the emergency he cited to impose those is America's big persistent trade deficit. So those are IA tariffs. Similarly, he used IPA to impose tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China, he said, to combat the emergency of fentanyl. And what's remarkable about all of these tariffs is that he has been able to impose them on his own without investigations, without even Congress, whom the Constitution gives the power of taxation.

[Tamara Keith]

And Carrie, obviously this has been challenged, and that's how it ended up at the Supreme Court. What are the people who are challenging these tariffs arguing?

[Carrie Johnson]

They basically say this IEBA law has never been used in this way by a prior President. The law itself does not include the word tariff. And in fact, this statute was passed in 1977 to limit presidential power after something Richard Nixon tried to do. You know, the challengers also say that tariffs are taxes. And as Danielle said, that power is supposed to be with Congress, not the White House.

[Danielle Kurtzleben]

And since IIPA doesn't use the word tariff, a big phrase that did come up in arguments a lot was the phrase regulate importation. The government is arguing that those words regulate importation include the power to tariff. Now, that led to some really interesting arguments because the people challenging the tariff said, wait a minute, that does not include that power at all. And the challenger said, look, this law does give a President broad powers. It gives the President the power to impose embargoes, quotas, even really big powers to do those things. But it simply does not give the President the power to raise revenue to levy a tax. And that led to this really interesting exchange between Justice Kavanaugh and Benjamin Gutman, a lawyer for the challengers. Kavanaugh was saying, okay, why would the President have broad powers over here but no power to tax? He then likened it to a doughnut hole. Here's Kavanaugh, then Gutman.

[Neal Katyal]

Why would a rational Congress say, yeah, we're going to give the President the power to shut down trade? I mean, think about the effects. But you're admitting that power's in there. Yeah, but can't do a 1% tariff. That doesn't seem to have a lot of common sense behind it. I think it absolutely does because it's a fundamentally different power. It's not a doughnut hole. It's a different kind of pastry.

[Danielle Kurtzleben]

And that got a really big laugh in the court, including from Kavanaugh. But the point here that Gutman was making is this is not about a amounts of power. This is about types of power. And the revenue raising power is just not something that the President can have, not under this law.

[Tamara Keith]

And while we're talking about the people who are challenging the president's use of tariffs, Carrie, I think it's important to point out that this wasn't just like Democratic attorneys generals and liberals only opposing a Trump policy, that there are conservative legal scholars that have a lot of concerns here, too.

[Carrie Johnson]

They absolutely have. We've had conservative and libertarian think tanks helping to bring some of these cases. Retired Judge Michael McConnell, a very conservative lawyer, was on the briefs on this case, as was Neal Kotyl. He served as the acting Solicitor General during the Obama years. And so this issue has not fallen evenly along political or partisan lines in the legal community at all.

[Tamara Keith]

And how is the Trump administration responding to arguments that they are going beyond what is allowed under the law?

[Carrie Johnson]

The Solicitor General, John Sauer, basically said the president has this power, and President Trump, him has said that it would be ruinous. It would be ruinous for the country for him not to impose these tariffs. Just today, he told a group of reporters it would be devastating if the Supreme Court ruled against him in this case.

[Danielle Kurtzleben]

Yeah. And in trying to justify how the president would have the power to tax under this law, the government was making the argument that there's a difference between a tariff as a tax as a revenue raiser and a tariff as a regulation. And Sauer was arguing this is a regulatory tariff because it's meant to induce certain things to happen. He kept saying, if this tariff is never paid, that means it worked, because that means Americans are not paying the tariff because they're buying American. And a big goal of these tariffs is to boost American manufacturing. But you have to wonder how that argument lands on the justices or anyone else listening to this, because if you listen to President Trump, what is he talking about? Constantly is the revenue raised by these tariffs. They most certainly are bringing in revenue. So I'm not sure how that argument landed on the justices, that, no, these are regulatory. Well, maybe, but they certainly are bringing in money.

[Tamara Keith]

The president doesn't stop talking about how much money he's making for America. Yeah, Kerry, when it comes to the Supreme Court, we are definitely not in the business of trying to guess where they will land. But there was a lot of back and forth. How do you assess how the justices approached these arguments?

[Carrie Johnson]

Yeah, hard to predict. But some of the toughest questions came from some of the conservative justices, including Neil Gorsuch, who himself was Trump's first appointee to the Supreme Court. Gorsuch, a solid, conservative voice, and it is hard to predict this case. Even before the arguments, the Solicitor General for President Biden. Elizabeth Prelogger had told an audience at a conference that this case was basically a coin toss. It was going to be very difficult to unscramble the eggs since these tariffs had already gone into effect. And I'm sure the justices are going to have to consider that as they decide their votes.

[Tamara Keith]

All right. Well, let's take a quick break and we will have more on this in a moment.

[Danielle Kurtzleben]

Hi, it's Terry Gross, host of FRESH AIR. Hey, take a break from the 24 hour news cycle with us and listen to long form interviews with your favorite authors, actors, filmmakers, comedians and musicians, the people making the art that nourishes us and speaks to our times. So listen to the FRESH AIR podcast from NPR and WHYY.

[Tamara Keith]

On this week's books we've loved.

[Carrie Johnson]

We're headed to the open range with Morning Edition's Michelle Martin to break down Charles Portis classic True Grit. Find books we've loved in NPR's Book of the Day podcast feed on the NPR app or wherever you get your podcasts.

[Danielle Kurtzleben]

You care about what's happening in the world. Stay informed with NPR's State of the World podcast. In just a few minutes, we take you to stories around the globe. You might hear the latest developments in world conflicts or about what global events mean for the price of your coffee. Listen to the State of the world podcast from NPR.

[Tamara Keith]

Keeping up with the news can feel like a 24 hour job. Luckily, it is our job. Every hour on the NPR News now.

[Danielle Kurtzleben]

Podcast, we take the latest, most important.

[Tamara Keith]

Stories happening and we package them into five minute episodes so you can easily squeeze them in between meetings and on your way to that thing. Listen to the NPR News now podcast now. And we're back. And we've been talking about the legal fight over President Trump's tariffs, which this week landed at the U.S. supreme Court. Danielle, President Trump has leaned heavily on tariffs for a variety of purposes. The what would the impact on his policy agenda be if the court ends up deciding against him?

[Danielle Kurtzleben]

Well, frustratingly, it's unclear. Now, no matter what, if they decided against his tariffs, it would be huge because the way to think about Trump's tariffs this term is that they fall into two buckets. You have the IPA tariffs, which are the ones he imposes on different countries, and the Section 232 tariffs, which are the ones he imposes on different goods like steel and aluminum and cars and so on. If the IPA tariffs go away, yeah, that's half of his tariff policy agenda. That is a very big deal. But that said if the IPA tariffs did go away, there are several other laws the administration could use to try to replace the IPA tariffs. Now, those laws aren't identical. They may not allow Trump to do tariffs at his whim. Some require investigations first. Some would only be temporary tariffs. So, in other words, if you overturn the IPA tariffs, it would weaken, but not by any means remove Trump's power to tariff things.

[Tamara Keith]

Huh. Well, let's talk about money. Since April, the United States has brought in more than $150 billion in tariff revenue. What could happen to that money if the Supreme Court rules that many of Trump's tariffs were illegal?

[Danielle Kurtzleben]

Well, it's complicated. I've talked to legal experts about this, and there could slash, would likely be some form of refunds of all of those tariffs that have been paid back. But as you might imagine, with all of these thousands upon thousands of companies paying the tariffs, that could be really, really complicated. I mean, one of the big questions is, if there are refunds, what does that look like? For example, the justices could say, we're going to refund the money to only the companies involved in this case, or they could say there are going to be more refunds. There could be a process by which companies all over the country only get a refund if they file a lawsuit, which would be legal chaos. So we don't know how that would look.

[Carrie Johnson]

You know, one thing that really struck me is that the justices themselves were grappling with that question, most notably Justice Amy Coney Barrett, another appointee of President Trump.

[Danielle Kurtzleben]

And then if you win, tell me how the reimbursement process would work. Would it be a complete mess? I mean, you're saying before the government promised reimbursement, and now you're saying, you know, well, that's rich. But how would this work? It seems to me like it could be a mess.

[Carrie Johnson]

So the first thing I'd say is.

[Danielle Kurtzleben]

That just underscores just how major a question this is.

[Neal Katyal]

The very fact that you were dealing with this.

[Danielle Kurtzleben]

In this case, the government stipulated for the five plaintiffs that they would get the refunds.

[Carrie Johnson]

And that was the lawyer for the plaintiffs, Neal Katyal, a former Justice Department official under President Obama. Katyal basically said there's a way to cabin or limit some of the implications if the justices were to rule in the challenger's favor in this case. And he also introduced this idea of the major questions doctrine. That's the idea that Congress doesn't, as Justice Scalia once said, hide elephants and mouse holes. If Congress wanted to give the president the power to do something. It would have said so. And so in the absence of clear information like that, on questions that are really big and have to do with the economy and other major social issues, the major questions doctrine should suggest that if it wasn't a clear direction of authority, then it shouldn't stand. And the Supreme Court has actually used that doctrine to throw out what President Biden wanted to do on student loan forgiveness and climate change. So the big question here is whether this Supreme Court will use that doctrine to limit President Trump's power on tariffs.

[Danielle Kurtzleben]

Right. And along those lines, one of the arguments that the challengers made is look at these other laws that the president has used or can use to tariff. Those laws are much clearer. Congress in those laws has been clearer on saying, yeah, president could tariff in this case, but the challengers are saying in ipa, the language is nowhere near as clear.

[Tamara Keith]

You know, I am actually still thinking about something you said at the very beginning of our conversation, which is that the president is using a law that was written in the 1970s after President Richard Nixon, in an effort to rein in presidential power, and now it is being used to expand presidential power. And this is not the first time we've had a conversation about this very thing related to other laws that were written in that same period. Kerry, can you talk a little bit about how this case fits into the broader question about presidential power and how that came up during yesterday's oral arguments?

[Carrie Johnson]

Well, you two both cover the White House, and you've seen how President Trump and the people around him in the Cabinet and elsewhere are trying to push executive power almost to the limit and in large part on the emergency or shadow docket. The Supreme Court has temporarily been agreeing with President Trump. It's allowed him to dismantle entire federal agencies, fire federal workers, do a whole bunch of other things. This case, this tariffs case, is the first one the Supreme Court is considering in a big way, with full briefing and full argument and going to make a final, decisive ruling on sometime soon or at least before the end of the term. And it should be seen as part of this push and pull over executive power. The Supreme Court, which is a 6 to 3 conservative supermajority at this point, has largely been very friendly to President Trump. The question is whether it will remain so. Now, Justice Neil Gorsuch raised some doubt about that. He had some skeptical questions. Here's more of what he had to say at the argument yesterday.

[Neal Katyal]

You emphasize that Congress can always take back its powers. You mentioned that a couple of times. But don't we have a serious retrieval problem here because once Congress delegates by a bare majority and the President signs it, and of course, every president will sign a law that gives him more authority, Congress can't take that back without a super majority. And even, you know, even that it's going to be vetoed, what president's ever going to give that power back? Congress is a practical matter, can't get this power back once it's handed it over. The President'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.

[Carrie Johnson]

And that's Gorsuch basically hitting the nail on the head here, signifying that once the power moves in the direction of the White House and the executive branch, it rarely then gets put back in the hands of Congress. And the court is going to have to decide one way or another on this particular issue where it sees that separation of powers. But we have a couple of additional major executive power cases coming up on the docket too, this year. They involve Trump's effort to fire Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve. And they also involve the viability of a 90 year old precedent on federal agency heads.

[Danielle Kurtzleben]

Yeah, I mean, to kind of sum up what Carrie and I have said in the last few minutes about the effects of this ruling, yes, this is a ruling about tariffs. Yes, this ruling would have some unknown effect on economic policy, depending on what the White House does. But this is not just a tariffs case. This is very much a presidential power case.

[Tamara Keith]

Danielle, we both cover the White House. President Trump has touted so many deals related to these tariffs. So is there an argument that the tariffs have actually already had the effect he was after globally?

[Danielle Kurtzleben]

To some degree, yes. I mean, at least on the global stage, he has been able to use tariffs to do what he likes to do. And what is that? It is deal making. He likes to make bilateral trade deals. He's been able to go to enemies and allies alike and neutral and everybody in between, and to go up to them and say, look, our giant economic superpower is going to slap huge tariffs on all of your goods that come into our country unless you do what we want, unless you invest X amount in our country, unless you make some sort of a deal to buy XYZ from our country. Trump likes doing that. And so he's been able to do that. Now, this is in no way to say that these deals are good. In fact, in a lot of cases, we don't even know what's in them. This is not to say that these deals will stick, but they've certainly let Trump do what he wants to do.

[Tamara Keith]

Yeah. And I, you know, there are still questions about what this has done to America's power in the world, America's relationship with other countries. There are lots of questions about that.

[Danielle Kurtzleben]

Absolutely.

[Carrie Johnson]

All right.

[Tamara Keith]

We're going to leave it there for now. I'm Tamara Keith. I cover the White House.

[Carrie Johnson]

I'm Carrie Johnson. I cover the Justice Department.

[Danielle Kurtzleben]

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

[Tamara Keith]

And thank you for listening to the end NPR Politics podcast. Making time for the news is important.

[Danielle Kurtzleben]

But when you need a break, we've got you covered on all songs considered. NPR's music podcast, think of it like a music discovery show, a well deserved escape with friends, and yeah, some serious music insight.

[Neal Katyal]

I'm gonna keep it real.

[Danielle Kurtzleben]

I have no idea what this story is about. Hear new episodes of All Songs Considered every Tuesday. Tuesday, Wherever you get podcasts, Latin music has never been bigger, but it's always been big on all Latino 15 years in, we continue celebrating Latinidad through a music lens, transcending borders through Ritmo. Get to know artists from La Cultura on a deeper level and throw some new Latin music wrecks into your rotation. Listen to Alt Latino in the NPR app or wherever you get your podcasts. Instead of letting an algorithm throw mediocre podcast recommendations at you, Sign up for NPR's Pod Club newsletter. We comb through hours of audio to find the gems, the episodes that will make you gasp, cry, or crack up in a public place. Then every week, we send those pics to your inbox and tell you why they're worth your time. Subscribe [e-mail] podclub.