Trump’s Lawyer Targets Another Surprise Supreme Court Victory

In a significant Supreme Court hearing this week, US Solicitor General D. John Sauer represented President Donald Trump’s position on millions of dollars in tariffs without Trump himself present. Sauer emphasized the administration’s view that rising trade deficits pose an imminent threat to America’s economic and national security, warning of dire consequences if the Supreme Court were to invalidate Trump’s tariffs.

Trump’s Tariffs at Stake

The case revolves around tariffs estimated to generate around $90 billion for the US Treasury. Lower courts previously ruled against Trump, leaving the administration’s legal arguments in a precarious position. The challengers include a New York wine importer, an educational toy manufacturer from Illinois, and various states. All three liberal justices appeared poised to vote against the tariffs, while three conservatives expressed skepticism.

Key Arguments and Court Dynamics

Sauer’s approach during the nearly three-hour oral arguments was marked by rapid-fire delivery and assertive rhetoric. Despite some justices questioning the extent of Trump’s unilateral tariff power under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), Sauer’s past victories, including a notable case in 2024, suggest he could deliver unexpected results.

• Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson: All three liberal justices expressed concerns about the tariffs.
• Chief Justice John Roberts: Raised questions about the legal basis for Trump’s tariff assertions and the implications for Congress’s powers.
• Justice Amy Coney Barrett: Voiced skepticism about the administration’s legal grounding under IEEPA, particularly the imposition of tariffs.

Roberts further underscored the intertwined nature of tariffs with foreign affairs, while Barrett inquired about the potential complexity of reimbursing billions if the tariffs were struck down, indicating the legal ramifications of the case are extensive.

Historical Precedents in Question

Sauer referenced the 1981 Supreme Court ruling in Dames & Moore v. Regan, asserting that it offered a robust precedent for presidential power over foreign economic policy. However, Chief Justice Roberts noted that the ruling was notably narrow and specific to its context. The administration’s reliance on IEEPA faced scrutiny, especially given its historical non-application to tariffs.

As the justices convened to deliberate, it remains unclear how their interpretations of both economic implications and presidential powers will shape the outcome. Voting is anticipated on Friday, with opinions to follow in the ensuing weeks.