The U.S. Supreme Court this week will consider the legality of President Donald Trump's global tariffs in what the president said will be "one of the most consequential" decisions the top court will ever make.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said that, under one legal authority or another, Trump's tariffs will stay in place long term.
Bessent said he expects the Supreme Court to uphold the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)-based tariffs. But if it strikes down the tariffs, Bessent said in an interview that the administration will simply switch to other tariff authorities, including Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows broad 15% tariffs for 150 days to calm trade imbalances.
Bessent said Trump also can invoke Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, a statute that allows tariffs up to 50% on countries that discriminate against U.S. commerce.
"You should assume that they're here to stay," Bessent said of Trump's tariffs.
For countries that have negotiated tariff-lowering trade deals with Trump, "you should honor your agreement," Bessent added. "Those of you who got a good deal should stick with it."
Trump wrote in a post to Truth Social last week:
Next week’s Case on Tariffs is one of the most important in the History of the Country. If a President is not allowed to use Tariffs, we will be at a major disadvantage against all other Countries throughout the World, especially the “Majors.” In a true sense, we would be defenseless! Tariffs have brought us Great Wealth and National Security in the nine months that I have had the Honor to serve as President. The Stock Market has hit All Time Highs many times during my short time in Office, with virtually No Inflation, and National Security that is second to none. Our recent successful negotiation with China, and many others, put us in a strong position only because we had Tariffs with which to negotiate fair and sustainable Deals.Earlier this year, a group of small businesses and Democrat-led states filed lawsuits to strike down Trump’s tariffs. Two courts — the U.S. Court of International Trade and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit — have declared some of those import taxes illegal. A second case, rising out of the federal courts at Washington, D.C., will also be heard after a group of small businesses sued Trump.
If a President was not able to quickly and nimbly use the power of Tariffs, we would be defenseless, leading perhaps even to the ruination of our Nation. The only people fighting us are Foreign Countries who for years have taken advantage of us, those who hate our Country and, the Democrats, because our numbers are insurmountably good. I will not be going to the Court on Wednesday in that I do not want to distract from the importance of this Decision. It will be, in my opinion, one of the most important and consequential Decisions ever made by the United States Supreme Court. If we win, we will be the Richest, Most Secure Country anywhere in the World, BY FAR. If we lose, our Country could be reduced to almost Third World status — Pray to God that that doesn’t happen!
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments for both cases, which have been consolidated, on Wednesday.
If the tariffs are "scaled back or canceled altogether," the president "will lose a critical tool he has been using to bend foreign nations to his will," Matthew Rice wrote for The New York Sun in a Nov. 3 analysis.
"If the court does uphold his tariff powers, however, it could be one of the broadest expansions in modern history of an executive’s unilateral power over the economy."
Last week, a flood of amicus briefs began flowing to the justices in opposition to Trump’s broad use of his tariff powers. One brief, filed by the Goldwater Institute and the John Locke Foundation, argues that Trump’s imposition of tariffs “runs contrary to everything” the Founding Fathers envisioned.
"Law professors, think tank scholars, elected officials, and small businesses were among other amici who urged the court to strike down the tariffs," Rice noted.
The second case before the Supreme Court, brought by Learning Resources Inc., argues that Trump and his administration are seeking “breathtaking” new authorities.
Attorneys for Learning Resources Inc. argue that the tariffs represent an illegal tax on consumers.
“Even if that were not the most natural reading of the text, basic principles of statutory construction confirm that, at a minimum, IEEPA does not convey the unlimited tariffing authority that the President claims here,” lawyers for the company wrote in their legal brief to the justices. “This Court is properly skeptical when the executive branch claims to discover in an old statute a breathtaking new power to remake the national economy.”
Last week, the Senate voted to cancel the president’s tariffs on Canada and Brazil, as well as his “Liberation Day” tariffs.
Typically, the House would then take up that resolution to kill the tariffs, though Speaker Mike Johnson earlier this year included language in a procedural measure to block any lawmaker from filing those accompanying resolutions in the House. That moratorium on anti-tariff resolutions in the House is set to expire in January, though lawmakers could simply extend it again.
