The global trade community is keenly watching the US Supreme Court, which is scheduled to hear oral arguments in a pivotal case that will challenge the legality of President Donald Trump's sweeping use of tariffs. The consolidated cases, notably Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, will decide if the president overstepped his authority by using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose duties on goods from numerous countries.

The controversy centers on the president's use of the IEEPA, a 1977 statute that allows the executive to regulate economic transactions after declaring a national emergency. Businesses and twelve US states are challenging this application, arguing that the IEEPA was never intended to grant the president the power to levy tariffs, a power the US Constitution explicitly vests in Congress. They point out that no president in the Act's nearly fifty year history has used it for this purpose before the Trump administration.

This judicial showdown comes after two lower courts the US Court of International Trade and the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit already ruled against the administration, finding that the broad "reciprocal" tariffs and the separate "fentanyl" related duties exceeded the president's authority under the IEEPA. The appeals court ruling, decided 7 to 4, affirmed that tariffs are a core Congressional power. The Supreme Court's ruling will test the limits of executive power over trade and national security, which the administration has invoked to justify the tariffs.

The ruling will have immense ramifications not only for American businesses, which have absorbed billions in new customs duties and face unprecedented levels of import taxes, but also for international trade relations. A decision upholding the lower courts could strike down many of the global tariffs currently in place, leading to billions of dollars in potential refunds and reshaping the US negotiating leverage. Conversely, a ruling in the president’s favor would solidify his ability to impose tariffs swiftly and broadly under an emergency declaration, potentially opening the door to even more levies and uncertainty for the world economy.

Regardless of the outcome, the case is poised to fundamentally redefine the separation of powers between the President and Congress in trade policy. Experts note that even if the court curtails the president’s use of the IEEPA, other existing trade statutes could be utilized to impose duties, though those processes tend to be slower and more constrained. The international community, from key allies like Canada to major trading partners like China and India, is observing the proceedings closely, as the verdict will directly impact the predictability of US trade policy for years to come.