Trump Administration Asks Supreme Court for Fast Ruling on Emergency Tariffs

The Trump administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday to take up and quickly resolve a legal challenge to sweeping tariffs the president imposed under an emergency powers statute, seeking to reverse a divided appeals court ruling that found most of the measures unlawful.

In a petition filed late Wednesday, Solicitor General D. John Sauer asked the justices to hear arguments in early November and to rule that the president has authority to levy the duties under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Last week the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in a 7-4 decision, largely upheld a lower court ruling that concluded the tariffs exceeded the statute and that setting import levies is a core Congressional power. The appeals court temporarily stayed its mandate to allow the government time to seek review.

The case, styled Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, was brought by several states and small businesses that said the tariffs were inflicting economic harm, disrupting supply chains and forcing companies to raise prices. The appeals court found that the tariffs did not fall within the scope of IEEPA, which authorizes the president to act in response to "unusual and extraordinary" threats, and said Congress had not delegated the power to impose broad trade levies to the executive branch.

The administration argued to the high court that the appeals court’s ruling has created uncertainty at a time when the White House is using tariffs as a tool in foreign negotiations. "That decision casts a pall of uncertainty upon ongoing foreign negotiations that the President has been pursuing through tariffs over the past five months," the government wrote, urging expedited consideration to prevent disruption of diplomacy and trade policy.

President Trump declared an economic emergency in April, citing a trade imbalance he said had harmed domestic manufacturing and national security. The tariffs, imposed in the months following that declaration, have been central to the administration’s economic and foreign policy strategy; a ruling against the president could require refunds of billions in duties paid by importers.

Two federal courts and a total of 10 federal judges have concluded the measures are unlawful, according to reporting on the litigation. The appeals court’s split opinion traced the question to statutory interpretation and separation-of-powers principles, concluding that the Constitution vests authority to set tariffs primarily with Congress.

Legal commentators and some news outlets have noted a tension the petition raises with recent Supreme Court doctrine. Republican justices on the Court have in recent years invoked a so-called "major questions" doctrine when reviewing expansive executive actions, frequently requiring clear congressional authorization for rules with vast economic or political significance. A Vox analysis of the administration’s filing said the petition contains factual assertions that, if credited by the Court, could be read to support the view that the tariffs implicate that doctrine. The administration, however, urged the justices to resolve the dispute in favor of executive authority under IEEPA.

If the Supreme Court agrees to take the case, it will be another high-profile test of executive power at a bench shaped in part by the president himself. The justices’ handling of the appeal could determine not only whether the tariffs remain in force, but also the breadth of the president’s ability to use emergency economic powers to impose trade penalties.

The court has discretion over whether to hear the case and on what schedule. The government asked for expedited review; if the court declines, the appeals court judgment would likely take effect and could require the administration to unwind portions of the tariff program. The litigation is expected to remain on a rapid timetable if the justices grant review, with counsel aiming for argument early in the fall term.