President Donald Trump on Wednesday urged the Supreme Court to step into the fray over his emergency tariffs, putting the centerpiece of his economic agenda in the hands of the justices who have mostly backed his sweeping view of executive power, according to a copy of the appeal obtained by CNN.
Trump is pressing the justices to overturn a lower court ruling that found his administration acted unlawfully by imposing many of his sweeping import taxes, and he has framed the case in existential terms.
“The stock market needs the tariffs, they want the tariffs,” Trump said Tuesday in the Oval Office, asserting that an adverse decision would mean “devastation for our country.”
The case once again raises fundamental questions for the court about a president’s power to act unilaterally and without explicit authority from Congress. Trump’s critics note that the last president to raise tariffs under similar circumstances was Richard Nixon, and Congress later pared back the president’s power.
“To the president and his most senior advisors, these tariffs thus present a stark choice: With tariffs, we are a rich nation; without tariffs, we are a poor nation,” according to the appeal.
The appeal follows a divided decision Friday from a federal appeals court in Washington that found Trump overstepped his authority by relying on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose the tariffs. The authority to impose taxes, including tariffs, is “a core congressional power” that the Constitution left to the legislative branch, the appeals court ruled.
Trump has relied on the 1970s-era emergency law, known as IEEPA, to reshape not just global trade, but also alliances with allies and adversaries. If some of the powers he’s claimed to set those tariffs are permanently blocked, the administration would need to find other levers to accomplish its ambitious foreign policy goals.
At the center of the case are the “Liberation Day” tariffs Trump announced in April and tariffs placed this year against China, Mexico and Canada that were designed to combat fentanyl entering the United States. A wine importer, VOS Selections, and other small businesses sued, along with a dozen states, arguing Trump had exceeded his authority.
“Both federal courts that considered the issue agreed that IEEPA does not give the president unchecked tariff authority,” said Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel and director of litigation for Liberty Justice Center, which is representing the plaintiffs in the case. “These unlawful tariffs are inflicting serious harm on small businesses and jeopardizing their survival. We hope for a prompt resolution of this case for our clients.”
The Trump administration has requested an unusually speedy review by the Supreme Court, asking that the justices decide whether to hear the case by September 10 and tee up arguments for early November. The plaintiffs in the case have agreed to that rapid timeline.
A federal court in New York agreed in late May and sided with the companies and states. The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld that decision. However, the appeals court let the tariffs stand temporarily while the litigation continues.
The lower court’s decision, the Trump administration argued to the Supreme Court, “would, in the president’s view, unilaterally disarm the United States and allow other nations to hold America’s economy hostage to their retaliatory trade policies.”
While the bulk of the tariffs Trump imposed during his second term, which cited emergency economic powers, could ultimately be rendered illegal, the president has plenty of other levers he can pull to continue pushing his tariff-heavy agenda.
That’s because Trump hasn’t just been using IEEPA to levy tariffs. All the sectoral tariffs Trump has imposed during his second term, most recently a 50% tariff on derivatives of steel and aluminum, such as spray deodorants and baby strollers, have used Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962.
The Section 232 authority gives the president the authority to impose higher tariffs on national security grounds. But it can only be used to target specific sectors and requires an investigation to be launched before tariffs can be imposed.
Similarly, there are several other methods Trump can use to impose tariffs that aren’t currently facing legal challenges. However, they too have catches that could make it harder for him to dangle and then withdraw duties quickly, as he has repeatedly done since retaking power in January.
The ongoing case is not the first to reach the Supreme Court dealing with Trump’s emergency tariffs. Two American family-owned toy companies filed a similar appeal in June. The court is scheduled to meet behind closed doors later this month to consider whether to hear arguments in that case.
The legal fight over the tariffs is likely to implicate a theory that conservative groups repeatedly used successfully at the Supreme Court in recent years to block former President Joe Biden’s agenda, including his effort to forgive student loans. The court repeatedly relied on the “major questions doctrine” to trim the power of the White House and federal agencies to act without congressional approval.
The federal law at issue allows a president to “regulate … importation” during emergencies, but the statute does not specifically address tariffs.
The law “bestows significant authority on the president to undertake a number of actions in response to a declared national emergency,” the appeals court wrote in its decision. “But none of these actions explicitly include the power to impose tariffs, duties, or the like, or the power to tax.”
Record levels of tariff revenue have been flowing into the US Treasury Department’s general account since Trump ramped up in the spring. Over the course of the 2025 fiscal year, more than $210 billion in tariff revenue stemmed from the IEEPA-related tariffs, according to data from US Customs and Border Protection.
If the Supreme Court doesn’t hear the Trump administration’s appeal or sides with the lower courts, American importers could be due refunds.
Trump acknowledged that potential consequence earlier this week, as well as the impact the case outcome could have on a handful of recent trade agreements that are still being worked out.
“Numerous of the trade deals that I made were because of tariffs. It gives you a great negotiating ability,” Trump said Tuesday.
But those agreements could quickly fall apart because Trump has cited IEEPA in imposing tariffs on other trading partners’ goods. It’s also possible other trading partners could leverage Trump’s weakened ability to impose tariffs on their exports by negotiating more favorable terms to trade agreements.
This story has been updated with additional details.
