The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to hear arguments over President Donald Trump’s sweeping global tariffs, taking up a fast-moving appeal that deals with the centerpiece of the administration’s economic agenda.
In the meantime, the tariffs will remain in place while the court hears the case.
Trump is pressing the justices to overturn a lower court ruling that found his administration acted unlawfully by imposing many of his import taxes, including the “Liberation Day” tariffs the White House announced in April and tariffs placed this year against China, Mexico and Canada that were designed to combat fentanyl entering the United States.
The case puts a major component of the American economy on the conservative court’s docket. And it raises a fundamental question about the power of the president to levy emergency tariffs absent explicit approval from Congress.
The Supreme Court said it would hear arguments in the case during the first week of November.
A decision would normally be expected by the end of June. But in this case, the court said it would expedite review.
The case follows a divided decision in late August from a federal appeals court in Washington that found Trump overstepped his authority by relying on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose the tariffs. The power to impose taxes, including tariffs, is “a core congressional power” that the Constitution left to the legislative branch, the appeals court ruled.
But the appeals court also allowed the administration to continue to impose the tariffs until the Supreme Court resolves the case.
Despite that, Trump asked the Supreme Court to hurry things up. The administration appears to be doing so in part because of uncertainty about what will happen to already-collected duties if the court rules against him. Delaying a decision until June, the government told the court, could “result in a scenario in which $750 billion-$1 trillion in tariffs have already been collected, and unwinding them could cause significant disruption.”
Figures published by US Customs and Border Protection show that tariff collections for the 2025 fiscal year were around $475 billion as of August 24, however. Of that total, $210 billion in revenue stems from the tariffs being questioned.
The president has relied on the 1970s-era emergency law, known as IEEPA, to reshape not just global trade, but also alliances with allies and adversaries. If some of the powers he’s claimed to set those tariffs are permanently blocked, the administration would need to find other levers to accomplish its ambitious foreign policy goals.
A wine importer, VOS Selections, and other small businesses sued, along with a dozen states, arguing Trump had exceeded his authority.
The ongoing case is not the first to reach the Supreme Court dealing with Trump’s emergency tariffs. Two American family-owned toy companies filed a similar appeal in June. The court consolidated the cases in its order Tuesday.
The legal fight over the tariffs is likely to implicate a theory that conservative groups repeatedly used successfully at the Supreme Court in recent years to block former President Joe Biden’s agenda, including his effort to forgive student loans. The court repeatedly relied on the “major questions doctrine” to trim the power of the White House and federal agencies to act without congressional approval.
The federal law at issue allows a president to “regulate … importation” during emergencies, but the statute does not specifically address tariffs.
The law “bestows significant authority on the president to undertake a number of actions in response to a declared national emergency,” the appeals court wrote in its decision. “But none of these actions explicitly include the power to impose tariffs, duties, or the like, or the power to tax.”
While the bulk of the tariffs Trump imposed during his second term could ultimately be unwound by the court’s decision, the president has other levers he can pull to continue pushing his tariff-heavy agenda.
Sectoral tariffs Trump has imposed during his second term – most recently a 50% tariff on derivatives of steel and aluminum, such as spray deodorants and baby strollers – have relied on a different law, known as Section 232.
The Section 232 authority gives the president the authority to impose higher tariffs on national security grounds. But it can only be used to target specific sectors and requires an investigation to be launched before tariffs can be imposed.
Similarly, there are other methods Trump can use to impose tariffs that aren’t currently facing legal challenges. However, they too have catches that could make it harder for him to dangle and then withdraw duties quickly, as he has repeatedly done since retaking power in January.
This story has been updated with additional details.