Livestream screenshot via Youtube

In a tense Supreme Court hearing, justices questioned Donald Trump's tariff use during his second term. US Solicitor General John Sauer defended the administration amidst scepticism from both conservative and liberal justices. Central to the debate was whether the president had the constitutional right to impose unilateral tariffs on foreign imports.

 

The case revolves around the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977, which the President claimed granted him emergency tariff powers. Trump's use of this law to impose tariffs on China, Mexico, and Canada sparked concern among the justices. Chief Justice John Roberts voiced fears about unchecked presidential authority, while Justice Neil Gorsuch pondered Congress’s potential abdication of responsibility in regulating foreign commerce.

 

Sauer argued the tariffs were necessary due to "country-killing" crises, warning of "ruthless trade retaliation" if powers were curtailed. He maintained that the tariffs are a regulatory measure, not a tax, despite billions in revenue, a point Trump has publicly highlighted. Counterarguments asserted Congress never intended IEEPA to grant such extensive tariff powers and questioned the legitimacy of Trump's proclaimed emergencies.

 

The hearing, stretching beyond its expected duration, saw questions about potential war emergencies and whether tariffs fit within executive powers. Justice Sotomayor criticised the notion that tariffs aren't a form of tax, reflecting ongoing concerns among several justices. Justice Kavanaugh highlighted the paradox of granting power to totally limit trade while restricting smaller tariff impositions.

 

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, present at the hearing, refrained from commenting, though US Trade Envoy Jamieson Greer and Senator Amy Klobuchar showed optimism for overturning the tariffs. The decision could impact an estimated $90 billion in tariff revenue, with the potential to escalate to $1 trillion.

 

The court's ruling, expected by June, could uphold or reverse lower court decisions against Trump’s tariffs. This ruling might require reimbursement for businesses, raising questions about the logistics of such refunds. Meanwhile, the administration is reportedly preparing contingency plans for an unfavourable decision.

 

 

 

Key Takeaways:

 

• The Supreme Court debated Trump's use of IEEPA for tariff authority.
• Justices questioned whether tariffs are a tax or regulatory measure.
• A ruling could affect $90 billion in already collected tariff revenue.

 

Related story:

Trump Declares 'Liberation Day' as Sweeping Tariffs Take Effect

 

 

  Adapted by ASEAN Now from BBC 2025-11-06

 

 

To Mr. Trump & attorneys:

 

Q: What constitutes an emergency?

 

A: An emergency exists when we say an emergency exists.

1 hour ago, jerrymahoney said:

To Mr. Trump & attorneys:

 

Q: What constitutes an emergency?

 

A: An emergency exists when we say an emergency exists.

Unfortunately true.menwhile the world’s economy’s thrown into chaos.a tax on consumers is levied by decree all predicated on flimsy excuses….most likely illegal.Not to mention stabbing our friends in the guts….but hey just tie it up in court and rake in the dough till it gets adjudicated one way or the other.Typical trump play book….some president ehh??

Just now, Tug said:

Unfortunately true.menwhile the world’s economy’s thrown into chaos.a tax on consumers is levied by decree all predicated on flimsy excuses….most likely illegal.Not to mention stabbing our friends in the guts….but hey just tie it up in court and rake in the dough till it gets adjudicated one way or the other.Typical trump play book….some president ehh??

I call it shotgun-chaos approach to leadership.

2 minutes ago, sharot724 said:

I call it shotgun-chaos approach to leadership.

Then feed on the scraps.

oops ...

no taxation without representation

 

reading the court ...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/breaking-down-supreme-court-arguments-over-trump-s-sweeping-tariffs/vi-AA1PSwzv?ocid=socialshare

Stocks close higher after Trump tariffs encounter skeptical Supreme Court

https://abcnews.go.com/Business/stocks-close-higher-after-trump-tariffs-encounter-skeptical/story?id=127232908

4 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Stocks close higher after Trump tariffs encounter skeptical Supreme Court

https://abcnews.go.com/Business/stocks-close-higher-after-trump-tariffs-encounter-skeptical/story?id=127232908

That’s a deceptive headline.   Stocks have hit records eve after the tariffs 

1 minute ago, Mike_Hunt said:

That’s a deceptive headline.   Stocks have hit records eve after the tariffs 

Because stock markets don't react to major current events? Especially when the issue is a major economic one? Thanks for the clueless comment.

10 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Because stock markets don't react to major current events? Especially when the issue is a major economic one? Thanks for the clueless comment.

The market was down yesterday due to profit taking.  Now it’s heading up again.   

Supreme Court Judges trying to decide trade policy now?

 

Makes you wonder why the US even bothers with elections...

9 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Supreme Court Judges trying to decide trade policy now?

 

Makes you wonder why the US even bothers with elections...

The president unilaterally gets to decide what he's allowed to do?. Makes you wonder why the US  bothers itself with the Constitution. Best just to admire the document for its penmanship.

I would rather have the clap than read another story about that IDIOT we have in the White House.  If Pee Wee Herman was alive he would be an improvement. 

It's very refreshing to see the Supreme Court challenging Trump these days. 

 

Trump is a failed capitalist. It is fairly easy to get wealthy if you are willing to steal most of your fortune from unsuspecting small contractors. Yet he still went bankrupt. That requires a special kind of skill. Or another form of grifting.

 

His tariffs (tax hikes) are a disaster. If they were highly targeted tariffs, only imposed upon goods other states were subsidizing, making it impossible to compete, that makes sense and would be good policy. But, blanket tariffs end up being punitive for the American consumer and American companies forced to operate overseas due to the silly costs of manufacturing in the US. They are a tax.

 

Trump lies when he says other nations will pay for them. He lies when he says companies will pay for them. Consumers will pay, so it becomes a tax. Be bold, big Don and for once be honest. It is a tax hike. And it could slow down the economy and result in a massive loss of jobs, and major inflation. Very dumb policy.

As per the topic heading Supreme Court Grills Trump Over Sweeping Tariff Powers Claim we will have to wait a bit to find out how tariffs will be set on grills from China

27 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

The president unilaterally gets to decide what he's allowed to do?. Makes you wonder why the US  bothers itself with the Constitution. Best just to admire the document for its penmanship.

This is from the first court ruling against the Trump IEEPA tariff agenda:

 

Trade Court Asks if Trump Could Declare Peanut Butter Emergency to Impose More Tariffs
May 13, 2025
 

(Law.com)—Federal government lawyers appeared hard-pressed to define the limits of President Donald Trump’s trade powers during a Tuesday hearing over his so-called “Liberation Day” tariffs, with one U.S. Court of International Trade judge asking hypothetically if Trump could use a peanut butter shortage as a reason to issue more tariffs.

 

Judge Jane Restani * offered her peanut butter hypothetical while pushing the U.S. Department of Justice’s Eric Hamilton to explain what standards the court could employ to evaluate whether Trump had properly invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

 

https://libertyjusticecenter.org/newsroom/trade-court-asks-if-trump-could-declare-peanut-butter-emergency-to-impose-more-tariffs/

 

* Judge Restani is now a senior judge on the court nominated in 1983 by President Ronald Reagan (u know the Canadian tariff guy.)

2 hours ago, sharot724 said:

oops ...

Still, you never know. Legal experts were almost unanimously shocked by the Supreme Court decision that whatever a President does that is confined to the use of his Presidential powers cannot be grounds for criminal charges. In effect, the Supreme Court has made the President very nearly, if not actually, a potential virtual dictator.

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

Supreme Court Judges trying to decide trade policy now?

 

Makes you wonder why the US even bothers with elections...

Are you trolling or just ignorant. The case brought to the Supreme Court is about the legality of Trump using the IEEPA of 1977. As Chief Justice John Roberts argue that the "major question"doctrine requires the executive branch actions of vast economic and political significance to be clearly authorized by Congress. Two other conservative justices have quite similar concerns. Not looking good for Trump's regressive tax on the people. 

7 hours ago, webfact said:

The court's ruling, expected by June, could uphold or reverse lower court decisions against Trump’s tariffs.

 

Do I read this correct, in that they will take another 8 months to make a decision?

It’s pretty clear a lot of Americans still don’t understand what tariffs actually are. Trump keeps saying “China’s going to pay,” but come on, do people really believe that? Tariffs don’t make them pay, they make you pay. They’re designed to punish American importers for buying foreign goods when those goods can be made domestically. But when there’s no local alternative, you’re basically punishing your own businesses and consumers for something they can’t control. Let’s be honest: America has benefited enormously from cheap imports of low cost goods from China and other countries for many years. Those workers earning $5 a day aren’t buying American cars or iPhones anytime soon, so who’s really getting the better end of the deal here? And on the flip side, no American investor is rushing to fund factories to produce those same low-cost goods at home. So the idea that tariffs are some clever way to “win” just doesn’t hold up. In reality, they’re just a hidden tax Americans pay to make a political point.

I just hope that Trump is gone after this term in office. 

I do not want dictatory Don in the USA, parliament.

Tarriffs make Boycott the USA a fitting reply to Donald J Trump policies.

That is my feelings only of course.

1 hour ago, CallumWK said:

 

Do I read this correct, in that they will take another 8 months to make a decision?

Better said 'up to' 8 months (end of current session) but can decide at any time.

1 hour ago, garzhe said:

It’s pretty clear a lot of Americans still don’t understand what tariffs actually are. Trump keeps saying “China’s going to pay,” but come on, do people really believe that? Tariffs don’t make them pay, they make you pay. They’re designed to punish American importers for buying foreign goods when those goods can be made domestically. But when there’s no local alternative, you’re basically punishing your own businesses and consumers for something they can’t control. Let’s be honest: America has benefited enormously from cheap imports of low cost goods from China and other countries for many years. Those workers earning $5 a day aren’t buying American cars or iPhones anytime soon, so who’s really getting the better end of the deal here? And on the flip side, no American investor is rushing to fund factories to produce those same low-cost goods at home. So the idea that tariffs are some clever way to “win” just doesn’t hold up. In reality, they’re just a hidden tax Americans pay to make a political point.

Actually, polls show that Trump's tariffs are  overwhelmingly unpopular.

15 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Actually, polls show that Trump's tariffs are  overwhelmingly unpopular.

 

From what I read online, the odds on the betting sites were 47% chance the court agrees with Trump before the arguments started.

At the end of the session that had dropped to as low as 27%, with an average of 30%.

1 hour ago, garzhe said:

It’s pretty clear a lot of Americans still don’t understand what tariffs actually are. Trump keeps saying “China’s going to pay,” but come on, do people really believe that? Tariffs don’t make them pay, they make you pay. They’re designed to punish American importers for buying foreign goods when those goods can be made domestically. But when there’s no local alternative, you’re basically punishing your own businesses and consumers for something they can’t control. Let’s be honest: America has benefited enormously from cheap imports of low cost goods from China and other countries for many years. Those workers earning $5 a day aren’t buying American cars or iPhones anytime soon, so who’s really getting the better end of the deal here? And on the flip side, no American investor is rushing to fund factories to produce those same low-cost goods at home. So the idea that tariffs are some clever way to “win” just doesn’t hold up. In reality, they’re just a hidden tax Americans pay to make a political point.

 

Good point, well made. If America can't make their own size XXL transparent boxer shorts with "ventilating feature opening" in at least 3 pastel shades with  3-day delivery, I'm sticking with Temu.

Neal Katal did an excellent job arguing on behalf of Learning Resources. His arguments begin at 1:15 mark on attached link: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2025/24-1287

 

I have to say that I strongly suspect that the reason Trump backed out of attending this hearing is because there is no way on God's green earth that he would have been able to articulate the merits of the legal arguments either in favor of or against granting him the tariff powers he is seeking. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Gecko123 said:

Neal Katal did an excellent job arguing on behalf of Learning Resources. His arguments begin at 1:15 mark on attached link: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2025/24-1287

 

I have to say that I strongly suspect that the reason Trump backed out of attending this hearing is because there is no way on God's green earth that he would have been able to articulate the merits of the legal arguments either in favor of or against granting him the tariff powers he is seeking. 

Actually, there's no way on God's Green Earth that he would have been allowed to speak before the Supreme Court.

 

2 hours ago, Gecko123 said:

Neal Katal did an excellent job arguing on behalf of Learning Resources. His arguments begin at 1:15 mark on attached link: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2025/24-1287

 

I have to say that I strongly suspect that the reason Trump backed out of attending this hearing is because there is no way on God's green earth that he would have been able to articulate the merits of the legal arguments either in favor of or against granting him the tariff powers he is seeking. 

 

 

Two Trump's goons were there. Scott Bissent and Howard Lutnick seat silent. They know it is gone case. The Supreme court will ruled against Trump. They now have to connive a plan to impose the tariffs. They not giving up to impose this regressive tax on the people.  

16 hours ago, jerrymahoney said:

As per the topic heading Supreme Court Grills Trump Over Sweeping Tariff Powers Claim we will have to wait a bit to find out how tariffs will be set on grills from China

And that's exactly where these incredibly dumb, thoughtless, and non-visionary tactics belong, on a grill or in the dumpster.