Trump Urges Supreme Court to Swiftly Hear Tariff Ruling Appeal
Washington, D.C. – September 5, 2025 – President Donald Trump has called on the U.S. Supreme Court to expedite its review of a federal appeals court ruling that declared most of his sweeping tariffs illegal, arguing that the “stakes could not be higher” for the nation’s economic and national security. The appeal, filed by the Justice Department on Wednesday, September 3, 2025, seeks to overturn a 7-4 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which found that Trump’s use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs exceeded his authority.
Background of the Tariff Dispute
The contested tariffs, a cornerstone of Trump’s second-term economic agenda, include “reciprocal” tariffs of up to 50% imposed on April 2, 2025, targeting countries with trade surpluses with the U.S., and a 10% baseline tariff on most imports. Additional levies announced on February 1, 2025, targeted imports from China, Canada, and Mexico, citing concerns over fentanyl trafficking. These measures, enacted under IEEPA by declaring trade deficits a national emergency, have generated $159 billion in revenue by July 2025, more than double the previous year’s figure, according to Fox News.
However, the Federal Circuit ruled on August 29, 2025, that IEEPA does not grant the president authority to impose tariffs, as the power to levy taxes and tariffs is vested exclusively in Congress under the Constitution. The court’s 127-page decision emphasized that IEEPA lacks explicit mention of tariffs and does not provide “unlimited authority” for such measures. The ruling upheld a May 28, 2025, decision by the U.S. Court of International Trade, which found Trump’s actions unconstitutional.
Trump’s Response and Appeal
Trump blasted the appeals court as “highly partisan” in a Truth Social post, asserting that the tariffs remain in effect and warning that their removal “would be a total disaster for the Country.” He argued that the levies are critical for protecting U.S. manufacturers and farmers, reducing trade deficits, and maintaining economic strength. “If these Tariffs ever went away, it would make us financially weak, and we have to be strong,” Trump wrote.
The administration’s appeal, led by Solicitor General John Sauer, was filed with an urgent request for the Supreme Court to hear arguments in early November and deliver an “expedited” ruling. Sauer contended that the lower court’s decision disrupts ongoing trade negotiations and risks “irreparable national-security and economic harms.” The tariffs, he argued, are essential for preventing an “unprecedented economic and foreign policy crisis.”
Legal and Economic Implications
The Federal Circuit’s ruling, paused until October 14, 2025, to allow time for the appeal, has sparked significant debate. Legal experts note that the Supreme Court’s 6-3 conservative majority, including three Trump-appointed justices, may improve his odds, but the court’s recent skepticism toward expansive executive powers—evidenced by its “major questions doctrine”—poses challenges. This doctrine, used to strike down Biden-era policies, requires explicit congressional authorization for actions with vast economic or political impact.
Critics, including small businesses and 12 Democratic-led states, argue that Trump’s tariffs, which affect nearly 70% of U.S. imports, raise consumer prices and harm businesses. The Tax Foundation estimated that upholding the ruling could reduce tariffed imports to 16%. Conversely, the Justice Department warned that invalidating the tariffs could force the U.S. Treasury to refund billions and destabilize trade deals with allies like the EU, Japan, and South Korea.
Alternative Options and Backup Plans
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent expressed confidence in a Supreme Court reversal but outlined a “Plan B” involving the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930’s Section 338, which allows temporary tariffs of up to 50% on countries discriminating against the U.S. Other tools, like Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 or Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, could also be used, though they require investigations and limit the scope and duration of tariffs.
Broader Context
The tariff case is one of several high-stakes legal battles facing Trump’s administration, including disputes over Federal Reserve independence and foreign aid funding. The Supreme Court’s decision, expected in early 2026 if it takes the case, could set a precedent for executive authority over trade policy and reshape global trade dynamics.
Trump’s appeal underscores his determination to preserve tariffs as a tool for economic leverage, but the outcome remains uncertain. As Solicitor General Sauer stated, “The President and his Cabinet officials have determined that the tariffs are promoting peace and unprecedented economic prosperity.” Whether the Supreme Court agrees will determine the fate of Trump’s trade strategy and its far-reaching implications.
Sources: Reuters, Newsweek, Fox News, SCOTUSblog, POLITICO, BBC, CNBC, The New York Times, MSNBC