Trump’s High Tariffs May Be Watered Down by Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on the legality of Donald Trump’s unprecedented use of powers to impose sweeping global tariffs — a case that strikes at the heart of the president’s economic agenda, Beiyi Seow reported for Agence France-Presse (AFP).

Trump's tariffs are a key prong of his “America First” trade policy aimed at protecting U.S. industries, quickly faced legal challenges. (Photo: Supreme Court of the United States of America)

Words

Trump invoked emergency economic powers to impose “reciprocal” tariffs over trade practices he deemed unfair, alongside separate duties targeting some of the United States’ largest trading partners: Mexico, Canada, and China.

These tariffs, a key prong of his “America First” trade policy aimed at protecting U.S. industries, quickly faced legal challenges.

Nobel laureate Jeffrey Sachs has stressed that Trump’s tariffs punish Americans, noting that Trump mistakenly claims exporters pay for them. Studies show that 86% of the tariffs’ costs are passed on to U.S. consumers.

The Supreme Court’s decision will have major ramifications but could take months. It could find the tariffs illegal, blocking duties imposed on goods from countries worldwide — or affirm Trump’s actions, opening the door to more levies.

A court ruled in May that Trump exceeded his authority in imposing the duties.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled 7–4 in August that the levies were illegal, affirming the lower court’s finding and prompting Trump to take the fight to the Supreme Court.

Kent Smetters of the University of Pennsylvania noted that 40% of U.S. imports are intermediate goods not destined for retail consumers, meaning tariffs will make U.S. firms less competitive.

Ryan Majerus, a former U.S. trade official, told AFP that the Supreme Court could allow higher tariffs with certain limitations.

The ruling could differentiate between “reciprocal” tariffs meant to narrow trade gaps and others imposed to combat issues such as fentanyl trafficking.

Even if the Court found Trump’s global tariffs illegal, he could still invoke other laws to impose 15% tariffs for up to 150 days or pursue investigations for more “durable” tariffs, such as those under Section 301 of the Trade Act.

Smetters said the case has broad implications for executive authority: “If the court really allows this to happen, then the question is, what else can the administration do without congressional approval? That might spook capital markets a bit more.”