The Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday on the legality of the Trump administration’s tariff policy.
Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
Supreme Court justices appeared skeptical Wednesday of the government’s argument that President Trump could bypass Congress to impose tariffs on other countries by using national security as the legal rationale.
Both the court’s six conservatives and its three liberals sharply questioned D. John Sauer, the solicitor general, on Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, known as IEEPA.
Lower courts have ruled that Trump exceeded his authority under both the statute and the Constitution.
But the president argues that both allow him to impose tariffs in order to deal with persistent trade imbalances and to stem the flood of fentanyl coming into the United States. Both, he asserts, present national emergencies and pose a threat to national security.
Sauer told the justices Wednesday that the tariffs put in place by Trump are “regulatory … not revenue-raising tariffs.”
“The fact that they raise revenue was only incidental,” he said.
Neil Katyal, a lawyer for those challenging the government, began his argument by simply noting: “Tariffs are taxes.”
Trump has repeatedly cited the amount of revenue tariffs have brought the federal government. They’ve brought in $195 billion this fiscal year, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a fiscal watchdog group.
Trump, who has championed tariffs for decades, had made them the centerpiece of his re-election campaign. Almost immediately after taking office, he imposed a range of tariffs on a variety of countries, including the closest U.S. trade allies.
But the tariffs spooked American businesses, prompting a court challenge, contending that the president had exceeded his authority in imposing the tariffs.
A decision in the case is expected next year.
