President Trump’s Tariffs: To be or not to be? The Supreme Court will give its final decision.

Calleigh Whalen '29

The U.S. government's imposition of sweeping tariffs on imports has created a major political and legal showdown. The dispute is the President's executive authority against the constitutional power of Congress to levy taxes, raising questions about the separation of powers in foreign trade policy.

The Domestic Dispute: Tariffs, IEEPA, and the Supreme Court

The core legal challenge is the U.S. Constitution's grant of the sole power to "lay and collect Taxes" to Congress. Tariffs, or taxes on imported goods, have historically been a legislative matter.

President Trump has invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977, citing illegal drug influx and U.S. trade deficits as "national emergencies". The administration claims the IEEPA enables the President to "regulate importation" in such situations, viewing tariffs as a regulatory tool rather than a tax. Trump argues that tariffs promote the purchase of American-made goods.

The Supreme Court is currently reviewing a case in which lower courts ruled the President exceeded his authority under IEEPA. During recent arguments, several justices, including conservatives, questioned the administration's broad interpretation of the law, noting it doesn't mention "tariff." They challenged whether the executive branch can impose such major authority, traditionally held by Congress. A ruling against the administration could invalidate most 2025 tariffs and lead to significant tariff refunds for importers.

The Global Context: High Reciprocal Tariffs and Trade Uncertainty

The U.S. trade policy has led to a complex and volatile reciprocal tariff environment with many international partners. High tariffs imposed by the U.S. often trigger retaliatory tariffs on American exports.

While the U.S. has imposed a baseline 10% "reciprocal" tariff on imports from nearly all trading partners to address trade deficits, the actual rates on specific countries are highly variable and tied to ongoing negotiations:

• China: The average U.S. tariff on Chinese goods has recently been estimated to be as high as 57.6%. The administration has imposed a 35% rate on most goods as part of the Fentanyl-related action, although a recent deal reduced certain tariffs to 10% until November 2026 in exchange for Chinese commitments on fentanyl and U.S. agricultural purchases.

• Canada & Mexico: Both face a 35% and 25% tariff, respectively, on most non-USMCA-compliant goods due to border/drug-related emergency actions.

• European Union (EU): The union is subject to a 15% reciprocal tariff on goods, with the threat of higher rates on specific sectors like autos.

• India & Brazil: These countries have faced some of the highest recently announced rates, with tariffs on certain goods reaching 50%.

However, studies show that increased tariffs often result in higher prices for shoppers, a negative impact. The Supreme Court's impending decision is expected to be a ruling that will either greatly expand or sharply limit the executive branch's power to shape U.S. trade policy.