Supreme Court Appears Skeptical of Trump’s Tariff Authority Under IEEPA
Washington, D.C., January 9, 2026 – The U.S. Supreme Court expressed significant skepticism during oral arguments in November 2025 regarding President Donald Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping tariffs on imports, potentially limiting executive power in trade policy and affecting Canada-U.S. relations.
Background on the Tariffs
Trump imposed tariffs under IEEPA starting in February 2025, targeting imports from Canada, Mexico, and China over fentanyl trafficking, and broader “reciprocal” tariffs on most countries citing trade deficits as a national security threat. These measures faced challenges from small businesses and states, arguing they exceeded presidential authority.
Oral Arguments Highlights
During the November 5, 2025, hearing, justices questioned whether IEEPA authorized tariffs, noting the statute does not mention “tariffs” or “duties.” Justices like Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett raised concerns about delegating taxing power to the president, while Sonia Sotomayor emphasized tariffs as revenue-generating taxes reserved for Congress. The administration argued tariffs were regulatory tools for emergencies, but challengers countered they violated the “major questions” doctrine requiring clear congressional intent.
Key Facts / Stats
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Tariff Types | Fentanyl-related tariffs (up to 35% on Canada); Reciprocal tariffs (10% baseline, higher on specific countries) |
| Economic Impact | Projected $1,200-$2,800 tax increase per U.S. household; Canada’s exports fell 15% in one quarter |
| Legal Challenges | Lower courts ruled tariffs unlawful; Federal Circuit upheld injunction in August 2025 |
| Potential Outcomes | Strike down tariffs, uphold partially, or affirm; Refunds could total billions if invalidated |
Implications for Canada
A ruling against the tariffs could lead to refunds and reduced unpredictability, but Trump may pivot to Section 232 or Section 301 authorities. Canada faces ongoing tariffs under Section 232 on steel and aluminum, with negotiations stalled after an Ontario ad sparked Trump’s ire. Prime Minister Mark Carney warned tariffs may persist despite talks.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is IEEPA and why is it central to this case?
IEEPA allows the president to regulate imports during declared national emergencies. The dispute centers on whether it permits broad tariffs without explicit congressional authorization.
How might the Supreme Court rule?
Experts predict a 5-4 split; justices could limit IEEPA’s scope, uphold fentanyl tariffs while striking reciprocal ones, or affirm all tariffs, emphasizing separation of powers.
What are the consequences for U.S.-Canada trade?
If tariffs are invalidated, refunds and litigation could ensue, but alternative laws allow Trump to reimpose duties. Canada may face continued economic pressure, prompting diversification strategies.