The process of examining the legality of a large part of the imposed by the Supreme Court of , a process that essentially concerns the evaluation of whether or not the president of the USA has the authority to make such decisions, has begun.
At the top of the Trump administration’s agenda is the process
The executive branch is pushing the nine justices — six conservatives and three progressives — to keep the tariffs on imports, arguing they bring in billions of dollars in revenue and have allowed the U.S. to extract promises of investment and more favorable conditions for American exports from its partners.
The Court’s verdict may not be announced for many months. But there is also the possibility that it will be taken too quickly.
The administration is throwing its weight behind the trial, which is expected to be attended today by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and White House Trade Representative Jamieson Greer.
Trump argued on Tuesday, in a post on the Truth Social platform, that maintaining the tariffs is “a matter of life and death for our country” because otherwise “we will find ourselves virtually defenseless against the other countries that have been taking advantage of us for years.”
The panacea of tariffs and the state of emergency
After returning to the White House in January, the Republican president made tariffs a mainstay of his economic and diplomatic policy. He boasts that in doing so, he will not only re-industrialize the country and reduce the chronic trade deficit but also, by imposing tariffs on Mexico, Canada and China, tackle the crisis of fentanyl, the powerful opioid whose overdoses kill tens of thousands of Americans every year.
The president invoked a 1977 law, the IEEPA (International Emergency Economic Powers Act) to impose tariffs on the grounds that the US trade deficit, though chronic for decades, constitutes an “emergency.” It thus claims to have the power to raise or lower tariffs at will.
Companies affected by the tariffs as well as some states (mostly controlled by Democrats) appealed to the court, arguing that the president cannot bypass Congress to impose tariffs that affect businesses and the lives of American consumers. Several federal courts have ruled that these tariffs, which are separate from those imposed on specific sectors such as autos or steel, are illegal.
However, the tariffs remain in force until the Supreme Court rules.
Trump team defends ‘miracle’ of tariffs
“With tariffs, we are a rich country, without tariffs, we are poor,” argued the government’s legal adviser, John Sauer, in his speech.
“The administration argues that the president can impose tariffs on Americans whenever he wants, at whatever rate he wants, on whatever country and products he wants, and for as long as he wants, simply by declaring that chronic trade deficits constitute an emergency,” lawyers for one of the affected companies responded.
“The president can still change his mind tomorrow and change it again the day after tomorrow,” they pointed out, referring to Trump’s repeated U-turns on his tariff policy.
“It is up to Congress, not the president, to decide whether and how much to tax Americans who import products,” argue the twelve states that appealed to the Supreme Court, urging it not to allow the president “to usurp this power.”
“Tariffs on tomatoes do not solve the fentanyl crisis,” they added.
The Court is also expected to rule on other issues related to the scope of presidential powers, such as the dismissal of officials of independent organizations, especially the Federal Reserve Bank (Fed).
