Will The Supreme Court Limit The President’s Power To Set Trade Rules? Donald Trump’s Tariffs On Trial

Supreme Court To Hear Landmark Trade Powers Case

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a crucial case on November 5 that could redefine presidential authority over trade and reshape global economic relations.
The case, Learning Resources Vs Trump, will decide whether a U.S. president can use emergency powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs without congressional approval.
The outcome could have sweeping implications for Donald Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs and for global trade policy.

Potential Impact On Trump’s Tariffs

According to a note by the Global Trade Research Initiative (GTRI), if the Supreme Court rules against Trump, it could force the administration to withdraw tariffs imposed under IEEPA.
It stated “Such a ruling would mean all “Liberation Day” tariffs–and subsequent rate hikes–lack a lawful basis. The administration would have to roll them back or face injunctions halting their collection”.
Trump could attempt to reimpose similar tariffs under Section 301 or Section 232, but those statutes require new investigations and public justification, delaying action and inviting further legal challenges.

What’s at Stake for Trump’s “Liberation Day” Tariffs

According to the Global Trade Research Initiative (GTRI), a ruling against former President Donald Trump could force the administration to withdraw all tariffs imposed under IEEPA.

“Such a ruling would mean all ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs-and subsequent rate hikes- lack a lawful basis,” the GTRI note stated.
If overturned, Trump could attempt to reimpose similar tariffs using Section 301 or Section 232, but those require new investigations, public justification, and could trigger fresh legal battles.

Global Trade Implications

GTRI noted that if the Supreme Court strikes down Trump’s use of emergency powers, the ruling would reverberate far beyond U.S. borders.
The decision would unravel the foundation of several recently negotiated trade arrangements with key partners such as the European Union, Japan, South Korea, and the United Kingdom.
These agreements were struck under the shadow of those tariffs and were premised on reciprocal concessions.
It would also disrupt ongoing trade talks with India, where tariff leverage has shaped Washington’s negotiating position.

A Globally Watched Case

The case is being closely watched not just in the U.S. but around the world, including in India. It is seen as a test of executive power and the constitutional separation of powers between the White House and Congress.

Three Lower Courts Already Ruled Against Trump Administration

Before reaching the Supreme Court, three lower courts had already rejected Trump’s interpretation of IEEPA:

• The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (April 26, 2025) ruled that IEEPA doesn’t grant broad tariff powers.

• The U.S. Court of International Trade (June 14, 2025) held that Trump’s use of emergency powers for tariffs violated the Constitution’s separation of powers.

• The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (August 2, 2025) upheld that decision, affirming that Congress never delegated such sweeping powers to the executive branch.

All Eyes On Washington

As the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments on November 5, global markets, trade partners, and policymakers are watching closely.
The outcome could reshape not just U.S. trade policy but also the limits of presidential authority for years to come.

Core Legal Questions Before The Court

• Two key legal questions lie at the heart of the case.

• Jurisdiction Issue:

  • The first question is whether the case belongs in a federal district court or the Court of International Trade (CIT).

  • The petitioners (Learning Resources, Inc.) argue their claims arise under IEEPA, not under any law “providing for tariffs,” and should therefore be heard in a district court.

  • The government, however, contends that since the case challenges the tariff schedule, it properly falls under the CIT’s jurisdiction.

• Presidential Power Issue:

  • The second, and more consequential question, is whether IEEPA allows the president to impose tariffs at all.

  • The petitioners, represented by Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, argue that IEEPA’s language permitting regulation of “importation or exportation” does not include the power to set customs duties, which is reserved for Congress.

  • They invoke the “major questions doctrine,” asserting that allowing a president to declare economic emergencies and unilaterally set tariffs would disturb the constitutional balance of powers.

(Disclaimer: This article is syndicated from ANI inputs and has been mildly edited for clarity and context.)

Also Read: ‘You’ll Find Out’: Trump Issues Strong Warning To China Over Taiwan Invasion….