The legality of President Donald Trump’s emergency tariffs is under scrutiny as the Supreme Court begins hearings on two pivotal cases. The justices will determine if Trump acted within his constitutional rights when he imposed tariffs on various countries, or if he overstepped his authority.

Trump justified the tariffs by declaring national emergencies related to fentanyl trafficking and the trade deficit, invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The court's decision will focus on whether these declarations were lawful and if the conditions for declaring a national emergency were satisfied. Currently, IEEPA tariffs range from 10% to 35%, depending on the country and product, and are projected to generate $195 billion in revenue for the U.S. government by the end of the fiscal year if they remain in effect.

IEEPA, enacted in 1977, was designed to regulate presidential emergency powers that were previously governed by the broader Trading with the Enemy Act. This statute allows the president to utilize economic powers to address significant threats to national security, foreign policy, or the economy, provided a national emergency is declared. While IEEPA has been used for sanctions, it has never been applied to impose tariffs until now.

The legal debate centers on whether IEEPA grants the president the authority to impose tariffs without congressional approval. Trump's legal team argues that he has broad powers to "regulate importation" during a national emergency, which they claim includes the authority to impose tariffs. However, critics point out that the term "tariffs" is not mentioned in the IEEPA statute, and historically, the power to impose tariffs has rested solely with Congress.

Thomas Berry, director of the Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, explains that the administration's interpretation of IEEPA is novel. He notes that the White House is focusing on the terms "regulate" and "importation" to justify its actions. Berry states, "(The White House) is arguing that the authority to regulate importation to deal with a national emergency includes the authority to impose tariffs essentially as leverage in negotiations."

Trump's lawyers contend that congressional approval for imposing tariffs under IEEPA was granted when the law was enacted and that the statute can be interpreted broadly. However, if this interpretation is upheld, it would need to align with either the nondelegation doctrine or the major questions doctrine. The nondelegation doctrine asserts that Congress cannot pass laws that are so vague that they allow the president to create policy independently.

Opponents argue that even if the court finds IEEPA grants the president tariff authority, the statute's broad language could violate the nondelegation doctrine. Berry notes that this argument may be challenging to prove, as no law has been struck down under this doctrine in 90 years. The justices' ruling will likely depend on their interpretation of IEEPA and whether they view the terms "regulate" and "importation" as sufficient legal authority for the president's tariffs during a declared emergency.

The White House maintains that IEEPA provides the president with extensive authority to address foreign threats, including economic and national security issues, and that tariffs are a necessary tool for safeguarding the U.S. economy. Many legal experts, including Berry and Clark Packard, a research fellow in trade policy studies, believe the Supreme Court may rule against the president. Berry cites the major questions doctrine, which suggests courts should be cautious when a president attempts to use an old statute for a new policy that was not anticipated at the time of enactment. This doctrine was applied when the Supreme Court struck down President Joe Biden's attempt to use the HEROES Act for student loan forgiveness.

Packard assesses the situation as leaning against the tariffs, giving it a 60:40 chance of ruling against Trump, but acknowledges that the outcome is not guaranteed. Trump’s legal team argues that the case involves national security and foreign affairs, which they believe warrants greater leeway from the court. Berry points out that some justices, particularly Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, may be more sympathetic to national security arguments, but he doubts this will secure a majority.

A ruling from the justices is expected soon, possibly within a month. Trump has expressed concern about the potential outcome, stating on Truth Social that losing the ability to act swiftly on tariffs could leave the nation vulnerable. He and his team have warned that refunding IEEPA tariffs could create administrative challenges and negatively impact the U.S. economy. However, trade experts note that Customs and Border Protection is equipped to handle duty refunds and that the president has other legal avenues to impose tariffs.

As the hearings unfold, all parties affected by the tariffs, including world leaders and small business owners, will be closely monitoring the justices' inquiries. Berry suggests that the nature of the questions posed by the justices could indicate their leanings. He states, "The more justices raise national security, the more they might be sympathetic to the administration. But the more they raise separation of powers, major questions, and statutory interpretation concerns, I think the more sympathetic they are to the challengers."