Supreme Court agrees to consider whether most of Trump's tariffs are legal

[LetMyPeopleVote]

The justices agreed to an expedited timeline to decide whether Trump can unilaterally impose sweeping tariffs using a law designed for emergencies.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-agrees-consider-whether-trumps-tariffs-are-legal-rcna229069

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to quickly decide a high-stakes showdown over President Donald Trump's tariffs on imports from foreign nations, a signature policy of his second term.

At issue is Trump's power to unilaterally impose tariffs, without congressional approval, under a law reserved for use in times of emergency.

The court took two different cases covering most of Trump's tariffs, including one filed by the Trump administration last week after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled on Aug. 29 that the president exceeded his authority. The other case is a similar challenge brought by two educational toy companies.

The tariffs, for now, remain in effect while the court decides the case.

[newdeal2]

1. Shall we take bets?

I know which way I’m betting.

[Dave Bowman]

3. I'm sure they'll do the right thing.

[Johonny]

6. They will be procedural

The plaintiff didn't bring the matter to the correct court or blah, blah, blah

That's my bet. They won't rule on the merits before them.

[pat_k]

9. Of course they are overturning. Otherwise, they would have just denied certiorari.

By granting review they effectively declare their treasonous intent to overturn the Federal circuit's decision that 47 doesn't have the authority to impose the tariffs under some phoney "emergency" declaration.

The black-robed traitors on the court have already given him the immunity of a king. Guess they figure they might as well give him the taxation authority of a king. (Note: Three concurring judges, while joining the opinion, added their concern that Trump’s “interpretation of IEEPA would be a functionally limitless delegation of Congressional taxation authority,”...)

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/divided-federal-circuit-gets-it-right-on-trumps-unlawful-tariffs/

....
The three judges of the CIT found unanimously, with good reason, that the worldwide and retaliatory tariffs “lack any identifiable limits” and are “unbounded . . . by any limitation in duration or scope” and thus did not fit IEEPA’s statutory definition of an emergency tariff.

Trump supporters have argued that Congress has delegated broad authorities to the president to set tariffs under a variety of statutes. But each such delegation has different conditions and limitations; what matters is that these tariffs have been justified and defended in court as national emergencies under IEEPA. The courts have been unpersuaded that we live in a state of permanent national emergency that is global in scope and decades-long in duration, requiring swift executive action on the theory that Congress could never assemble in time to address the issue.

As the court noted, it’s not even obvious that the statutory language (of IEEPA) delegates any tariff power at all. Consider what the statute empowers the president to do:

investigate, block during the pendency of an investigation, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit, any acquisition, holding, with-holding, use, transfer, withdrawal, transportation, importation or exportation of, or dealing in, or exercising any right, power, or privilege with respect to, or transactions involving, any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

As the court observed:

Notably, when drafting IEEPA, Congress did not use the term “tariff” or any of its synonyms, like “duty” or “tax.” There are numerous statutes that do delegate to the President the power to impose tariffs; in each of these statutes that we have identified, Congress has used clear and precise terms to delegate tariff power, reciting the term “duties” or one of its synonyms. In contrast, none of these statutes uses the broad term “regulate” without also separately and explicitly granting the President the authority to impose tariffs. The absence of any such tariff language in IEEPA contrasts with statutes where Congress has affirmatively granted such power and included clear limits on that power.

...
Three concurring judges, while joining the opinion, added their concern that Trump’s “interpretation of IEEPA would be a functionally limitless delegation of Congressional taxation authority,” which would present serious constitutional questions — a position for which they invoked the views of Justice Neil Gorsuch.

[Renew Deal]

10. lol

Yup

[Ocelot II]

2. BOHICA.

[Prairie Gates]

4. I'm going to ask the Magic 8-Ball what these fanatics are going to decide

[unblock]

5. Lemme guess. When delegating powers to *agencies*, congress must be incredibly specific

Because agencies can have zero discretion and cannot interpret or read into what congress wants, it can only do what congress specifically authorized them to do, and no generalizations or vague language can be used to broaden the scope of what an agency can do.

However, when delegating powers to a Republican president, that president is free to interpret it however he wants and take an inch and run a mile with it, and congress has no oversight, unless they want to repeal the law (and override the inevitable veto).

[LetMyPeopleVote]

7. Deadline: Legal Blog-Supreme Court agrees to consider Trump tariffs appeal on expedited basis

The president said that a ruling against his tariff authority would “literally destroy the United States of America.”

Supreme Court agrees to consider Trump tariffs appeal on expedited basis (MSNBC)

The Constitution clearly states Tariffs are the EXCLUSIVE domain of Congress. If the SCOTUS finds for Trump bypassing Congress, it will prove itself just a feckless as Congress!

— @thewraithrides.bsky.social 2025-09-09T21:31:16.126Z

https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/supreme-court-trump-tariffs-appeal-expedited-rcna229105

The Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear the Trump administration’s tariffs appeal on an expedited basis, in a case with vast implications for the economy and presidential power, setting a fast briefing schedule with a hearing to come in November.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled against the administration Aug. 29, reasoning that the federal law invoked by President Donald Trump didn’t give him the authority he claimed. The circuit court kept its ruling on hold to provide a chance to appeal. The administration did so, asking the justices to hear the case on an expedited timeline. The justices agreed on Tuesday, also granting review in another tariff-related case that was pending before the court, consolidating the two appeals to consider together.

The court, whose next term starts in October, generally decides the term’s cases by early July. Given the expedited timeline on which the court agreed to hear the tariffs case, a decision could come well before then, although the justices aren’t on a deadline to rule.

Framing the matter as urgent, the administration told the justices that the circuit ruling “has disrupted highly impactful, sensitive, ongoing diplomatic trade negotiations, and cast a pall of legal uncertainty over the President’s efforts to protect our country by preventing an unprecedented economic and foreign-policy crisis.” Trump previously said that a ruling against him on the matter would “literally destroy the United States of America.”

[NickB79]

8. The longer this drags on, the bigger the potential rebate bill will be

If found illegal, the injured parties that paid the tariffs will be entitled to rebates PLUS interest.

It's a potentially TRILLION DOLLAR bill to the US government.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

11. The Supreme Court agrees to hear Trump's appeal in the tariffs cases on a highly expedited basis

Link to tweet