U.S. Supreme Court to hear challenge to Trump’s global tariffs on November 5

2025/09/19 08:34

The U.S. Supreme Court has set November 5, 2025, as the date it will hear arguments over the legality of Donald Trump’s sweeping global tariffs. The case will test the limits of presidential power and could have major economic consequences.

The tariffs, which are still in place, have served as the backbone of Trump’s trade and foreign policy decisions since he secured reelection in January. He enforced them by invoking emergency powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a statute enacted in 1977.

Critics have said this was an abuse of authority, while the supporters believe it’s a bold defense of American jobs and security.

Courts rule Trump went too far

On August 29, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit struck a major blow to Donald Trump’s trade policy. The judges said that the president had overstepped his authority when he ordered the imposition of tariffs at a global level, using emergency powers under a statute known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

The judges emphasized that IEEPA never intended to give presidents unlimited authority over tariffs. Rather, the law was written for limited use in national emergencies related to foreign threats. Previous presidents often deployed it to slap sanctions on or freeze the assets of unfriendly governments. None of them had used it to remake global trade, however.

The court said that Trump went too far in using IEEPA to impose tariffs on various imports. The ruling underscored that Congress, not the president, possesses the constitutional power to regulate trade and lay duties.

The decision came after months of legal wrangling after a coalition of 12 states, led by Democratic attorneys general from New York, Oregon, and Colorado, sued against the tariffs. They said the tariffs lifted consumer costs, wounded local businesses, and disrupted supply chains.

Small businesses also scrambled into the fight, with a number saying their costs had risen with the imposition of the tariffs on imported materials and that they had less room for profit on sales. One of the biggest challengers is Learning Resources, a family-owned toy maker. The company said in court documents that the tariffs significantly increased production costs and jeopardized its survival in a competitive industry.

The tariffs will stay in place while that legal process continues, even though the ruling went against the government. That means American importers will be paying higher duties for the time being. Consumers’ prices rise on various products – from household goods to electronics and toys.

Supreme Court to weigh presidential power

Now, the court will determine whether Trump’s use of IEEPA squares aligns with the law. The tariffs and the balance of power between Congress and the presidency are at stake.

Lawmakers from both parties have urged the administration not to proceed with tariffs. Senator John Cornyn, a Texas Republican and Trump ally, told CNN that changing trade policy in ways that affect Americans is beyond a president’s authority. He said Congress should decide on tariffs, as it traditionally does. Trump argues, however, that national security and financial stability give the president wide powers to act.

A ruling for Trump could greatly expand executive power in economic affairs. Future presidents might employ emergency laws to reshape trade without involving Congress.

If the court comes down against him, it would restrict presidential power and force the U.S. government to refund hundreds of billions of dollars collected in tariffs. That could blow a hole in federal revenue and roil global markets.

Trading partners, already unnerved by the prospect of tariffs, are watching closely. Economists say the uncertainty has contributed to market volatility and weakened investor confidence.

Trump, for his part, has doubled down on his approach, saying tariffs are an important tool to shield U.S. industries, slash trade deficits, and pressure other countries like China, Mexico, and Canada to crack down on the flow of illegal drugs or unfair trading practices.

Just recently, Scott Bessent said that Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs are likely to pass Supreme Court scrutiny, but warned the Treasury may be forced to return hundreds of billions in tariff revenue if the court rules against the White House.

Speaking on NBC’s Meet the Press, the Treasury Secretary noted he was “confident” Trump’s trade moves would be upheld. Still, he admitted that “we would have to give a refund on about half the tariffs, which would be terrible for the Treasury,” if the court strikes them down. “If the court says it, we’d have to do it,” he added.

If you’re reading this, you’re already ahead. Stay there with our newsletter.

Source: https://www.cryptopolitan.com/court-to-hear-challenge-to-trumps-tariffs/

Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact service@support.mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.
Share Insights

You May Also Like

What Pacers Must Consider In Extensions For Bennedict Mathurin Or Aaron Nesmith

What Pacers Must Consider In Extensions For Bennedict Mathurin Or Aaron Nesmith

The post What Pacers Must Consider In Extensions For Bennedict Mathurin Or Aaron Nesmith appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. PORTLAND, OREGON – JANUARY 19: Bennedict Mathurin #00 of the Indiana Pacers and Aaron Nesmith #23 box out Duop Reath #26 of the Portland Trail Blazers during the fourth quarter of the game at the Moda Center on January 19, 2024 in Portland, Oregon. The Portland Trail Blazers won 118-115. (Photo by Alika Jenner/Getty Images) Getty Images INDIANAPOLIS – While the Indiana Pacers free agency period has slowed significantly – all they have done since their July 24 two-way agreement with Taelon Peter is sign Jalen Slawson to an Exhibit 10 deal – they still have two contract negotiations to consider before the season starts. Guard Bennedict Mathurin as well as wing Aaron Nesmith are both eligible for a contract extension this offseason, and they both have drastically different considerations guiding financial dialogue with the team. Mathurin is eligible for a rookie-scale extension until October 20. Nesmith, meanwhile, could sign a veteran extension this offseason, and his agreement has the same deadline. Once the regular season arrives, both players won’t be able to sign any new deals until next summer. There is a time restriction. Both Nesmith and Mathurin are talented and relatively young. In theory, that’s the type of player a team would want to keep – but things are never that simple. The Pacers are currently under the luxury tax and project to be about $20-26 shy of that threshold next season, then $70-79 below it in 2027-28 – the year Nesmith’s extension would kick in. A lot can change for a team’s roster and salary outlook, so those numbers may not end up being relevant. But that flexibility is a part of the story when it comes to the Pacers extension negotiations with both players – and the salary chatter for both projects to be different. “Yeah,…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/19 07:56
Share
Charlie Kirk’s Murder, MAGA Fallout, And Crypto Industry’s Silence

Charlie Kirk’s Murder, MAGA Fallout, And Crypto Industry’s Silence

The post Charlie Kirk’s Murder, MAGA Fallout, And Crypto Industry’s Silence appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. The crypto industry is facing criticism for insufficient support of free speech. After Charlie Kirk’s murder last week, the community has been silent on Trump’s new wave of McCarthyist mass firings. Many of the same personalities who spent President Biden’s term defending free speech are either silent or actively gloating about this situation. One thing is certain: crypto has changed in the last few years. Sponsored Sponsored Crypto, Free Speech, and Charlie Kirk Bitcoin was invented with libertarian principles to be trustless and borderless, and free speech has long been a crucial issue for the crypto community. Many prominent community figures strenuously pushed back against deplatforming under Biden’s Presidency, calling it a free speech violation. Now, however, a new crisis clearly shows how far the space has transformed. Since the tragic murder of Charlie Kirk last week, President Trump has stirred up a mass firing campaign, targeting teachers, government workers, and ordinary citizens for alleged social media comments. Last night, the FCC threatened ABC with the removal of its license, compelling the channel to cancel a popular talk show. This seems like a pretty open-and-shut free speech issue, but many crypto leaders apparently don’t see it that way. The main reaction has been silence, causing some industry veterans to criticize this apparent hypocrisy. It’s very telling that all of the advocacy groups in crypto who claimed “money is speech” when Roman Storm was tried in the Tornado Cash trial are silent now Crypto is about protecting freedoms in government overreach. Free speech is under attack and you’re afraid to stand up? — Zack Guzmán (@zGuz) September 18, 2025 Since the crypto community rallied in support of free speech earlier this year, even winning significant support, this silence is particularly noteworthy. Sponsored Sponsored These same leaders are often very close to…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/19 09:18
Share