US President Donald Trump speaks to reporters upon arriving at Palm Beach International Airport in West Palm Beach, Florida, on October 31, 2025.
Samuel Corum | Getty Images
Supreme Court justices expressed skepticism Wednesday morning about the legality of the heavy tariffs President Donald Trump has imposed on most countries around the world.
The conservative and liberal justices grilled Attorney General D. John Sauer on the legal validity of the Trump administration’s tariffs, which critics say violate Congress’ taxing power.
A lower federal court ruled that Trump lacked the legal authority it cited under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose so-called reciprocal tariffs on imports from many of the United States’ trading partners, as well as fentanyl duties on products from Canada, China and Mexico.
Mr. Sauer defended tariff policy based on authority to regulate foreign commerce, saying, “These are regulatory tariffs, not revenue-raising tariffs.”
“The fact that we’re profitable is just a coincidence,” Sauer insisted.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, one of the court’s three liberal members, told Sauer: “You say a tariff is not a tax, and that’s exactly what it is.”
“They are generating money, income from the American people,” Sotomayor said.
She later pointed out that no president other than Trump has used IEEPA to impose tariffs.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, one of six conservatives on the court, pressed Sauer on the fact that President Trump unilaterally imposed tariffs without Congressional approval, citing an international emergency.
“What would happen if the president vetoed a bill that would restore these powers?” Gorsuch asked.
“So, as a practical matter, can’t Congress take back this power?”
Sauer has been questioned by the judges for more than an hour, but the plaintiffs’ lawyers in the case have not made arguments.
Tariffs start at a basic 10% for many countries and jump up to 50% for products from India and Brazil.
According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, tariffs, if maintained, will generate $3 trillion in additional revenue for the United States by 2035. The group said last week that the federal government collected $151 billion in tariffs in the second half of fiscal year 2025, “an increase of nearly 300% compared to the same period” in fiscal year 2024.
November 5, 2025, Washington, DC – Supreme Court justices stand outside the U.S. Supreme Court as Rick Woldenberg, CEO of educational toy company Learning Resources, which is involved in a lawsuit against President Donald Trump, is scheduled to hear oral arguments on President Trump’s efforts to maintain tariffs after a lower court ruled that the president overstepped his authority.
Nathan Howard | Reuters
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who was scheduled to attend Wednesday’s oral argument, said in a September court filing that the U.S. could have to repay more than $750 billion if the Supreme Court rules that the tariffs are illegal and waits until next summer for that ruling.
The Supreme Court is not expected to rule on the case Wednesday. It is not clear when the court will announce its decision.
The case is seen as a key legal test for President Trump, who has won several favorable Supreme Court rulings on other policies during his second term in the White House.
President Trump has argued that tariffs are critical to protecting the U.S. economy and people, and will provide a sharp incentive for companies to manufacture products in the United States.
“Tomorrow’s case before the U.S. Supreme Court is literally life or death for our country,” President Trump said in a social media post Tuesday.
“With victory, we will have tremendous but fair fiscal and national security,” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social.
“Without that, we are virtually defenseless against other countries that have taken advantage of us for years. Our stock market has consistently hit record highs, and our country has never been more respected than it is now,” he said. “A big part of that is the economic security created by tariffs and the agreements we’ve negotiated to get there.”
Critics of the tariffs argue that the economic hit is borne not by foreign manufacturers but by the U.S. importers who pay them, and that the bulk of the additional costs are passed on to U.S. consumers.
President Trump had previously said he was considering attending oral arguments, but this would clearly be the first time for a sitting president.
“I will not be in court on Wednesday because I do not want to take away from the importance of this judgment,” he told Truth Socia I on Sunday.
“In my opinion, this will be one of the most important and consequential decisions ever handed down by the United States Supreme Court,” he wrote.
This is developing news. Please check the latest information.
