The Donald Trump administration is facing a high-stakes legal battle this week as the Supreme Court of the United States prepares to weigh whether the president’s sweeping use of emergency powers to impose global tariffs oversteps the constitutional bounds of executive authority.
At the heart of the case is whether Trump can rightly invoke the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977 to declare a national emergency and thereby impose tariffs on imports from countries across the globe without prior congressional authorization. A coalition of a dozen U.S. states argues that the law never contemplated the use of such broad economic measures, particularly tariffs, and that only Congress has the constitutional power to levy taxes or duties.
Trump has repeatedly turned to emergency declarations as a tool to bypass legislative checks, and this tariff strategy is another manifestation of that approach. On the first day of his second term, he declared an emergency over an “invasion” of undocumented migrants at the southern border, and since then the administration has made extensive use of emergency powers. The plaintiffs contend that the president has transformed emergency authority into a blank-check for unilateral economic intervention, unduly concentrating power in the executive branch.
The legal question is narrow but potentially far-reaching: does IEEPA authorize a tariff—a form of taxation—when the statute itself does not mention tariffs and Congress retains the power to impose duties under the Constitution? Moreover, the administration’s rationale—that trade deficits, immigration flows or foreign-based threats constitute an “unusual and extraordinary” threat to national security or foreign policy—tests the boundaries of what an emergency looks like under U.S. law.
Economists and trade specialists point out that Trump’s trade war has already created tangible strains: while inflation remains relatively under control, higher import duties on intermediate inputs and consumer goods are beginning to erode U.S. exporters’ competitiveness and drive up costs. On the global stage, Beijing recently signalled that it may retaliate by restricting exports of rare earths and other key minerals crucial to modern supply chains and defence industries—a move that could severely escalate trade and geopolitical tensions.
Even if the Supreme Court rules that IEEPA cannot be used to impose tariffs, the ruling will not end the broader trade war. Trump still has other statutory tools available—such as section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 and section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 that allow tariffs when imports are shown to seriously injure domestic industry or when countries engage in unfair trade practices. These tools, however, come with procedural constraints such as investigations, consultations and publication of findings—limits that the IEEPA route effectively circumvented.
Legal analysts say the case presents a broader threat to the American constitutional order. They warn that allowing a president to declare an emergency at will and reshape the economy accordingly could undermine the checks and balances fundamental to the U.S. system of government. As the Court takes up the matter, the question is not just whether this particular trade policy is lawful, but whether one branch of government may unilaterally override the rest under the guise of crisis.
