What to expect as US Supreme Court hears Trump’s tariff powers case on November 5

The United States Supreme Court will on November 5 hear a case that could redefine the limits of presidential power over trade policy. According to reports in foreign media and statements made by Donald Trump on his Truth Social account, the former president called the upcoming case “one of the most important in the history of the country”, saying the ruling would determine America’s economic strength and national security.

Trump, who has defended his tariff strategy throughout his presidency and beyond, said that the ability to impose duties swiftly is essential for protecting US interests. “If a president is not allowed to use tariffs, we will be at a major disadvantage against all other countries throughout the world,” he wrote, adding that tariffs had helped the US achieve “Great Wealth and National Security.”

He also said he would not attend the Supreme Court hearing “to avoid distraction”, but described the pending ruling as potentially “one of the most important and consequential decisions ever made” by the court.

Add Zee Business as a Preferred Source

Case tests legality of emergency powers

The case, Learning Resources vs Trump, centres on whether the president can invoke emergency powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs without congressional approval. Enacted in 1977, IEEPA allows a president to regulate trade in response to national emergencies, but its use for setting tariffs has long been disputed.

According to foreign media reports, Trump had used these powers earlier in 2025 to raise import duties as high as 145 per cent on China, and up to 50 per cent on other major partners including India and Brazil. Data from the US Customs and Border Protection show that by September 23, American businesses had paid nearly $90 billion in disputed IEEPA tariffs – more than half of all tariff revenue collected in fiscal year 2025, which ended on September 30.

A note by the Global Trade Research Initiative (GTRI) stated that if the Supreme Court rules against Trump, it could force the administration to withdraw the “Liberation Day” tariffs imposed under IEEPA. “Such a ruling would mean all tariffs and subsequent rate hikes lack a lawful basis,” it said, warning that the government would have to roll them back or face injunctions stopping their collection.

The potential fallout extends far beyond US borders. Several recent trade deals with the European Union, Japan, South Korea, and the United Kingdom were negotiated under the shadow of these tariffs. A reversal could unsettle those arrangements and complicate ongoing trade discussions with India, where tariff leverage has shaped Washington’s stance.

At the heart of the case are two constitutional questions. The first is whether the case belongs in a federal district court or the Court of International Trade (CIT). The petitioners, led by Learning Resources Inc., argue that their claims arise under IEEPA itself and should therefore be heard by a district court. The government maintains that challenges to tariff schedules must go before the CIT.

The second and more consequential issue is whether IEEPA permits a president to impose tariffs at all. Lawyers for the petitioners argue that the law allows regulation of importation and exportation but does not authorise tariff-setting- a power reserved for Congress. They also cite the “major questions doctrine”, arguing that allowing a president to unilaterally set tariffs would disrupt the constitutional balance between the executive and legislative branches.

Three lower courts have ruled against the Trump administration on similar grounds. The US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois first ruled on April 26, 2025, that IEEPA did not authorise the use of emergency powers for tariff imposition. The US Court of International Trade upheld this decision on June 14, finding that Trump’s tariff actions violated the Constitution’s separation of powers. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reaffirmed this ruling on August 2, holding that Congress never delegated such sweeping tariff authority to the president.