Today, the Dept of Justice Solicitor General Dean John Sauer provided oral arguments to the Supreme Court in support of President Donald Trump’s tariff authority. The issue at the heart of the matter is the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which grants the president the power to levy tariffs.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Sonia Sotomayor, leaned heavily on the argument that tariffs are taxes against the American people, and all taxes must come from Congress. The ‘tariffs are taxes’ argument seems to be the linchpin for the leftists on the court and the Gorsuch ‘conservatives’.
Solicitor Sauer countered the IEEPA tariffs are “regulations” against foreign imported goods. “The power to impose tariffs is a core application of the power to regulate foreign commerce, which is what the phrase ‘regular importation of commerce’ in IEEPA naturally evokes,” Sauer said.
The full audio of the arguments is provided below. (I’m working on the transcript). WATCH (prompted):
.
It’s not as easy, Chief Justice Roberts said, to simply frame a tariff as a tax – a power reserved to Congress. “It implicates, very directly, the president’s foreign affairs power,” said Roberts, who is a key vote to watch in the case.
Trump’s tariffs, Roberts said, were “quite effective” in achieving the president’s particular objective. That position is closely aligned with the administration’s position that a president has broad power in the context of foreign affairs.
The court is expected to hand down a decision by the end of June – or potentially sooner.
I am against tariffs because I am a free trader. That being said, Trump’s use of tariffs as negotiation points is different than the classical Econ 101 tariff idea you might have been taught.
Tariffs rightfully belong in the Congress. Congress should initiate them, pass them for the President’s signature. But, that’s not the way it has worked for decades.
Here is what irks me about this SCOTUS case. Presidents going back to FDR have instituted tariffs unilaterally on their own. Hell, FDR remade American capitalism into crony capitalism. No one has squawked about it before. Why? Tariffs protected establishment cronies. Auto tariffs, steel tariffs etc. The Establishment hates Trump and is taking him to court.
This case is just more lawfare designed as getting back to good government. The next President who has Establishment credentials will put in tariffs for cronies and they won’t make a peep.
There’s no such thing as free trade, that’s why the objective is fair trade.
Hear, hear FAIR TRADE! Agree Mingoose.
Exactly
Yes. Purely free trade would also require free movement of labor which means unlimited immigration.
“Free trade” is a unicorn.
I didn’t have to go far to see my rebuttal. Thank you………
Yeah, they take runs at President Trump in waves – the insurance monopolies are part of this wave too, coordinated with the government shutdown and Virginia election (huge amount of government employees in Northern VA). I don’t know if you’ve looked at your 2026 premiums: mine’s up $500 per month! For a grand total of $20,000 a year. It was $800 before Obama RipOff.
The entire world is FOR TARIFFS ON THE USA You being against Tariffs imposed by the USA is a sure way to make sure every foreign nation imposes massive tariffs on the USA…..By you being against tariffs, you are the actual cause of MASSIVE TARIFFS.
Zing!
He is hardly ” the cause” of tarrifs. He may represent many not aware of how they are reciprical.
Trump’s use of reciprocal tariffs are representing cost mitigation and fees imposed in defense or our nation and as a balancing of our mutual national interests versus foreign governments and foreign commercial and corporate interests. The Presidency and Executive Branch are the subject matter experts in this policy arena and to be such is a core function rooted in the Executive and the Presidency.
Sometimes the domestic consumer will absorb all the fees and costs imposed, but more likely the fees and costs are distributed more dynamically. Sometimes the foreign supplier will absorb such fees as a sunk cost of entry into a foreign market to better compete therein. There is nothing linear about it. To call it “an imposed tax paid by domestic consumers” is a disingenuous and misleading oversimplification.
Where does Congress derive the controlling jurisdiction to directly tax a foreign nation, foreign government, foreign goods or foreign corporations in the general manner and authority consistent with the construction and operation of domestic taxation within the borders of our nation to be paid by our citizens?
Whatever role Congress has in mitigating the decision making of foreign governments determining the parochial commerce interests of those foreign governments is rather limited and of lesser scope than the role and authority to negotiate terms, costs, fees and reciprocities in foreign commerce formally and traditionally invested in the Executive Branch.
Tariffs are more a species of foreign costs and fees than a species of tax as would be domestically levied upon our citizens by our Congress. This is especially so in the case of reciprocal tariffs and related transnational negotiations between foreign governments and our national government.
Free trade is nice in text books and Econ classes. It’s garbage when applied to a world populated by wannabe dictators, despots and kings.
Exactly. I always cringe when I hear people say they’re free traders (and completely oblivious to how we’re treated by the rest of the world).
Tariffs benefit the country overall, but not those that get cheap labor cost reductions in Asia even though those countries tariff/regulate our stuff out of their countries while they steal our technology.
I used to have to pay a $2 tariff to get a glass for the keg at a party… 😀 It was the price of admittance, not directly tied to the cost.
nonsense… Better get a real job.
I collect vintage / antique dress felt hats. The major producing countries strongly defended their domestic markets and manufacturers. For example the United States put major tariffs on Italian, French and German Felt hats. This was especially the case up to 1930s. They even applied major tariffs on Felt types such as Velour which the U.S. didn’t produce. You have to defend domestic markets and manufacturers.
Some would say that free trade led to the rise of China.
Totally! As I mentioned regarding the Felt Hat industry of the first quarter of the 20th Century. You have to defend domestic markets and manufacturers! I have to laugh at some of the lawyers / lawyer types commenting here. They are not based in reality. Same with SCOTUS.
Most people can trace when they stopped calling themselves Libertarians to the day they realized that “free trade” is pure utopianism, and cannot and does not exist outside the covers of dusty 100-year-old textbooks.
“Sure, tariffs work in the real world, but do they work in theory?” – Libertarians
Agreed on the rest. Presidents’ power to levy tariffs is settled law going back a century. For 90+ years Presidents, including Trump 45, levied tariffs. A central argument they should have made is “why now?” And the answer is simple: tariffs work, prices have not gone up (ie, no taxes!), and this is simply more weaponized litigation targeting PDJT. SCOTUS should rule for Trump on the merits, AND should rule on the weaponized use of Lawfare illustrated by this case.
“Free trade” gave us(amongst other things) weaponized product dumping, a blunt instrument used to send jobs overseas, imported slave labor, and carpet bomb local industries.
Free trade is a myth, perpetuated by globalist trade cartel monopolists.
“Free trade” = globalism.
It’s also unilateral disarmament. Other countries do and have used tariffs and other trade barriers to block foreign products my entire life. The EU is particularly adept at creating multiple layers of import blockades. There isn’t any “free trade” between nations – there are only fools that think it exists and those who take advantage of the fools.
IMESHO, it is unfortunate that there are lawyers making business decisions, people who are concerned about semantics versus leading a nation. Maybe the business of leading this country belongs with the Executive, and not the judiciary.
The Constitution does not mention the actual word “tariff” anywhere. Congress does have the authority under Article I, Sec 8, to “lay and collect” “duties” and to “regulate commerce with foreign nations”, but the “executive power” of the United States is vested under Article II in the President alone, and that power gives to the President broad authority over relations with foreign countries, whether friend or foe. The clash comes in how to understand the interaction of each of these things, and that it is Congress that for a very long time has been overstepping their authority and not President Trump.
A tariff can be defined as a type of “duty”, which Congress has the power to “lay and collect”, but Sec 8 goes on to say that “all duties … shall be uniform throughout the United States”, and that clashes with the view (long predating the Constitution) that tariffs can be a foreign policy tool meant to restrict or eliminate trade with another country in an attempt by coercion to get that country to change their behavior to achieve any number of foreign affairs objectives of the President, rather than to simply collect revenue. In that sense, the tariffs that President Trump, and of many Presidents before him, are not the kind of “duties” for which only Congress has sole authority. By their very nature, as a foreign policy tool aimed at changing foreign behaviors, the kind of tariffs President Trump has been implementing are non-uniform and therefore are not of the kind Congress has authority over. They are an Article II foreign policy tool, not an Article I revenue-raising mechanism. President Trump should be allowed to use tariffs under his Article II authority without Congressional or Judicial interference, but only so long as he is not attempting to make his non-uniform tariffs into nothing other than a revenue-raising mechanism, because that is the prerogative of Congress alone (and he should stop talking about how much revenue his tariffs have raised). Congress has power over uniform duties for revenue-raising and the President should have power to use non-uniform tariffs as a foreign policy tool.
Regarding the Article I power to “regulate commerce with foreign nations”: Like many other Congressional powers, it is aimed at specific uniform dealings about trade to make for a consistent, predictable, and steady flow of commerce so that businesses and the legal systems can operate efficiently and with the least amount of disruption. It is when a foreign country is operating in a manner in which relations with that country (regarding trade or military affairs or any number of other things concerning both countries) are not steady and predictable and the President, under Article II, has to interact in an adversarial manner to defend the interests of the United States using tools such as non-uniform tariffs against them to change their behavior. Congress, while perhaps not very happy about it, still has considerable oversight authority to influence what the President is doing, but they should not have authority to impede him by banning such tariffs. At least, that is the way it ought to be.
Over the years since the founders wrote the Constitution, Congress had muddied the waters in many ways attempting to subvert and reign in the executive power of the President to enhance their own power, particularly within the last century or so. Some of the very laws that the President is basing his tariff authority on are arguably unconstitutional and always have been. It is interesting that so far as I know Congress did not join the lawsuit being heard by SCOTUS today, and their absence should weigh heavily on the Justices when they make their decision. President Trump may lose that lawsuit, but it does not mean his uses of tariffs as a foreign policy tool are anything other than completely Constitutional exercises of his Article II executive power over foreign affairs.
“They are an Article II foreign policy tool, not an Article I revenue-raising mechanism.” This is, or should definitely be, understood by both Congress and the Court. Excellent analysis!
ie tariffs are economic SANCTIONS not duties.
Donald Trump is carrying out the agenda that he ran on and we voted on and he won on.
This the agenda of We The People, it’s what we want carried out.
THIS is what elections are all about, to vote on how the country will be run, funded, defended, all of that, and we won.
So is the Supreme Court really going to strip us of our win?
The Supreme Court answers to us, who works for who? they all work for We The People, the American Taxpayers.
This country is broke and in debt to the point that if we’re being honest, it’s a national security risk it’s so bad..
Well we got here from a whole lot of being screwed over by all these countries, enough is enough.
A lot of this money is being clawed back with the use of Tariffs, it’s a good response to what they’ve done to us.
Trump describes all the time that we’ve been treated very unfairly, this is how we got here and we’ve voted for the solution of Tariffs.
I have to laugh, out one side of their mouths the Democrats want to give everyone on the planet whatever they want from our country, but then they also work to destroy the country and bankrupt us.
You can’t have it both ways!!
It takes money coming in to pay for their big Welfare State!
I’m so disgusted with watching the destruction of our country, beyond disgusted.
https://chroniclesmagazine.org/view/our-imperial-judiciary/
The ‘judges’ not unlike feudal kings – seemingly no end or restraints to their power. They simply issue an edict and everyone must follow it. That simply cannot be right, but it has obviously come to this.
Dear John Roberts,
Don’t think of Trumps tariffs as a tax. They are really more like a fine.
See how easy that was.
Kind of like the b o non care,
had a mandate in legislation (not called a ‘tax’)
that was renamed,
by court as a tax in 2010 (and a court is to judge legislation, not to write / rewrite legislation)
Or a foreign policy sanction…
Same with Obama care and yet he went there and look at the results.
I don’t see why defining tariffs as taxes makes a difference anyway.
Congress passed the law, which is all the Constitution requires. And Congress gave the executive branch the authority to apply the law.
The only way to be against Tariffs, is to be for, mandatory reciprocal tariffs….Without counter tariffs, any Nation that imposes tariffs will become a wealthy powerful nation, at the expense of other nations.
https://www.nytimes.com/1985/05/02/world/reagan-s-power-wide-under-emergency-law.html
Of course the President then was not named ‘Trump”.
The senate has failed at least twice in 2025 to repeal or modify Trump’s use of tariffs.
These votes are proof of at least two things.
One, that Congress has the tools and a process to control a presidents use of tariffs IF ITS EXCESSIVE, and not enough of them believe it is excessive.
Two, enough of congress agrees with Trump’s Tariffs that they have prevented those that disagree from moving it past the grumpy temper tantrum stage.
The FAILED senate votes, themselves, should constitute all the proof SCOTUS needs to STAY THE F OUT OF IT…for now.
The senate can’t even open the government.
Actually, the Senate approved two bills preventing tariffs against Brazil and Canada. The 60 votes were not needed. But the House will not take those bills up, and even if they did and it passed the House, President Trump would veto.
I can’t wait to hear how KBJ rules!
I have little doubt she’ll:
1) Dissent from everyone.
2) Write a long rambling opinion, half of which makes no sense.
3) End with the question “Can someone explain what a tariff is to me?”
Is that a typo? A DECISION BY THE END OF JUNE?
I listened to this earlier, the whole arguments.
Tariffs are a matter of foreign policy. It gets countries to heel, stop their nonsense of war stances.
I am sure the CCP or Canada or Mexico or … does not want an embargo on all their products (people) coming into the US, which is what we very well may see happen if the SCOTUS rules against President Trump.
An embargo is 100% within the purview of the Executive branch.
Countries would just have to roll the dice and see what happens if the SCOTUS rules against PT
Also, exports as well, if it is a national security matter, would not be leaving the US
Leverage
Self-described/self absorbed ‘Wise Latina’ from Cardinal Spellman High outdid herself once again…..distaff end of the bench has become an ongoing ‘View’ audition.
Roberts seems like he is clueless, well, actually he is, but he is just doing what he’s told to do.
Full text of Scott’s comment:
A short time ago, I arrived back at USTreasury after watching arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer presented strong, persuasive arguments on the necessity of using IEEPA tariff authority to confront the emergencies President Trump has declared.
More importantly, the plaintiffs’ attorneys, Neal Katyal and Benjamin Gutman, espoused arguments that reflected foundational misunderstandings and misrepresentations about the Trump Administration’s trade goals.
Using IEEPA, President Trump has sought to rebalance decades of unfair trade against the United States that has brought us to a tipping point. The goal of his agenda is bringing back manufacturing and balancing the crisis-level deficits and trade barriers with our global trading partners.
The tariff income is incidental to these urgent goals – not the underlying reason for their application. In fact, as I have said many times, as the terms of trade are made more fair, U.S. manufactured items will replace imported goods. Tariff revenues will shrink, and U.S. domestic tax receipts will surge.
Showing their dramatic lack of economic understanding, Messrs. Katyal and Gutman argued that a President does have the authority to impose an embargo or quotas on other countries because those actions do not affect government revenues. Of course, they do. What embarrassing statements to make in front of SCOTUS.
Furthermore, in a statement bordering on the absurd, Oregon Solicitor General Gutman said that he believes IEEPA gives POTUS authority to impose a full embargo on a country but not a 1% tariff.
President Trump has used the IEEPA authority to address the fentanyl crisis, bring us back from the edge on trade policy, secure rare earths from China, and curtail the purchases of Russian oil – all urgent national security issues.
Economic Security is National Security, and IEEPA provides a powerful tool for President Trump to protect our people, our economy, and our nation.
An interesting argument in response to Scott’s:
I listened to the excellent SCOTUS tariff case oral arguments and I’m not sure which way the Court is leaning. Why hasn’t this argument been made: POTUS has the power to negotiate the terms of trade deals, sovereign to sovereign agreements—he is, the “contracting officer” for those negotiations.
A tariff is a term to be negotiated and if it is to remain in effect/become permanent, that must ultimately be ratified by Congress but why does the Judiciary (or the Legislature for that matter) have any authority to dictate what terms POTUS offers (or refuses…?) when negotiating on behalf of the United States in his capacity as the Head of State?
If he can’t negotiate with other sovereigns without getting his approved negotiating marching orders from Congress, how are the branches “co-equals”? And more practically how will anything ever get done—-if you have to get Congressional permission to make any offer, you will never get to the negotiation table with any other country!
So long as any revenue raised is deposited into the US Treasury and remains untouched until an authorization/appropriation acts allows it to be taken out/spent, there is no power of the purse violation. Would square with miscellaneous receipts statute—the fact that that statute exists necessarily means Congress understood the branches might come into cash/assets as part of execution of their official functions—if POTUS scores value for the USA as part of negotiations that is per se in the best interests of the USA—deposit $$/asset in treasury/well done and if/when/how we liquidate/spend that is a joint discussion for another day.
A business oriented lens would align with that line of thinking.
Trump’s tariffs are not on US citizens. End of game the Libtards lose!
we can no longer vote our way out of this tyranny. they tax our labor and everything we should own, WITHOUT REPRESNTATION.
and when we send a guy to the imperial palaces on the potomac to lighten that burden, unelected elites overrule it.
they will not let us go in peace.
There is no way for the SCOTUS to call the tariffs a tax like Roberts did with the Obamacare mandate.
There is no way to prove that the tariffs are a “uniform tax” on Americans. As we have seen since these tariffs were first implemented in April that the tariffs are being absorbed by various countries’ manufacturers reducing prices of their exports to America, by countries like China devaluing their currencies thereby allowing Americans more bang for their buck, etc. And they are far from “uniform”.
Taxes come with their own statutory laws, tariffs do not. Tariffs are not being imposed on Americans, they are being imposed on other countries, just as those countries impose tariffs on us.
Roberts already stretched the word “tax” to include the Obamacare mandate. Does he really want to go down that road again in another 5-4 decision against President Trump?
Sure there’s a way. He can just say it. Remember with Obamacare that Roberts did this despite every Democrat in Congress, as well as Black Jesus himself, stating ON THE RECORD “it’s not a tax!” and it was not passed as a tax bill formally.
And yet, the mandate was construed to be a tax…
That ruling was and is an obscenity. And no other justices signed onto it.
Disheartening. Justice Roberts?
Wasn’t he the Supreme Court Justice — who had a new definition of ‘taxes’ — so much so that we ended up with ObamaCare?
Is this the same guy?
“John Roberts Calls Trump’s Tariffs ‘Taxes on Americans’ While Grilling Admin Lawyer”.
https://www.mediaite.com/politics/chief-justice-roberts-calls-trumps-tariffs-taxes-on-americans-while-grilling-admin-laywer/?cfp
According to Supreme Court Justice John Roberts, ObamaCare is good — Trump’s tariff’s are bad.
This is the same John Robert’s who “construed” an illegal mandate to be a legal tax thereby making Obamacare constitutional under Congress’ power to levy taxes. (recall that Obamacare was NOT a tax bill, and all Democrat Congressional leaders stated on the record “this is not a tax!”) That’s what made Roberts’ singular ruling so shocking and obscene.
So he’s fudging a bit here because he has already “construed” – framed – something as a tax to justify his preferred policy outcome.
Framing a tariff as a tax would simply be a variation on the theme since taxation is a power reserved to Congress. I almost wonder if he’s tipping his hand here or testing the waters on whether he can play that card again to get a 5-4 defeat of Trump.
I wonder how Roberts thinks the Congress could possibly deal with over 100 countries separately in determining the level of tariffs for each. Congress was not set up for that as a legislative act. It is an Executive act properly dealt with by agencies under the Cabinet.
“Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Sonia Sotomayor, leaned heavily on the argument that tariffs are taxes against the American people, and all taxes must come from Congress.”
And all taxes must come from Congress…….
As it was explained to me many, many years ago, the difference between a tariff and a tax is that the tax originates from the House of Representatives, the “people’s house”, and is levied on the US citizen. A tariff, on the other hand, originates in the executive branch, and is not levied on the US citizen, it is levied on foreign entities.
Foreign entities are not privileged to have representation within our government, as US citizens are guaranteed to have. Also, as we have seen with our current President, tariffs can be a useful tool when negotiating trade agreements, a job assigned to the executive branch.
Sounds simple, reasonable and correct. Did the President’s counsel argue this point I wonder. How can SC rule it is a tax on Americans? They shouldn’t be able to, but we all know ‘shouldn’t be able’ is a very tenuous reason when it comes to members of the SC aka Justice Roberts.
“the difference between a tariff and a tax is that the tax originates from the House of Representatives, the “people’s house”, and is levied on the US citizen. A tariff, on the other hand, originates in the executive branch, and is not levied on the US citizen, it is levied on foreign entities.”
I hope Trump wins this for America.
The senate cast at least two votes in 2025 on Trump Tariffs, which means 1) congress had there say on the matter twice and decided to let him keep doing whatever it is he’s doing, and 2) that Congress has a process and a way to overrule him if they want to, and clearly they don’t.
SCOTUS should realize this is a foreign policy political matter and quickly find a reason to stay out of it, as it’s obvious that it’s either POTUS or Congress that sets tariffs but it’s clearly not judges.
Tariffs are far more than just taxes. Tariffs are not just one standalone thing. They are a combination of many different tools, especially the way President Trump is using them.
Yes, tariffs can be used to raise revenue (a tax)Tariffs are being used very effectively by President Trump as a negotiating tool to apply pressureThe Executive, not any other branch, conducts negotiations with foreign governments. Congress can only ratify or reject treaties negotiated by the Executive with other countries.Tariffs are tools for setting trade policy (delegated by Congress to the Executive)Tariffs are tools for domestic industrial policy, including for national defense industries (rare earth minerals, critical industries like steel, aluminum, semiconductors, shipbuilding etc.)President Trump is using tariffs for national security to deter fentanyl trafficking and mass migrationTariffs are used to enforce important national priorities like promoting human rights and rule of law. That is how they are being used against Brazil (punishment for persecuting Bolsanaro.)The Commander in Chief is using tariffs to ensure US treaty allies do their share in supporting military alliances (NATO, Japan, South Korea.) Those allies have all offered to increase military expenditures in exchange for some relief from tariffs. (Treaties become part of the Law of the Land when ratified. All those allies do have ratified mutual defense treaties in place.)
MOST of the ways President Trump has been using tariffs have been to apply pressure to other countries.
The ways President Trump has been using tariffs are either in pursuit of powers given to the President by the Constitution or powers delegated to the President by Congress.
If tariffs were only a tax paid by US consumers, other countries wouldn’t care about tariffs. But other countries clearly, verifiably care VERY much about tariffs.
“Tariffs as a tax” are probably the LEAST important purpose of how President Trump is using them. They do generate a lot of money, but that’s a bonus not their main purpose. President Trump frequently trades away extra tariff revenue in return for more important concessions from other countries.
When did the term “free trade” come to mean the world sells to America for free but Americans are charged tariff’s to sell to the rest of the world? Sounds like some socialist contorting the meaning of words again.
I am just a technical writer and am listening to the audio of this hearing while comparing lists of engineering drawings; however, am I alone in observing that Justice Sotomayor (especially at about 2:06) bases her questions on “not understanding.” As opposed to other justices, she does not cite other cases, but refers to her own thoughts and feelings.
Likewise, while Brown Jackson follows with a quick reference to a statute brought up, mostly jumps on a single phrase (trying to pick it apart).
I have not listened all the way through but the justices, even conservative Justices appear skeptical about tariffs being an executive power without Congress involved. I guess it will come down to the relative statutes already on the books, to analyze whether tariffs designed by the President showed a good use of Presidential power vs. whether it was a power that Congress should ultimately have. Concern expressed about how Congress could get the power to tariff back again, once the power was given to the President.
There seemed to be some concern about the President having too much power. Also there was a discussion about this being a period of war.