As noted by CNN
U.S. President Donald Trump called this case a “life-and-death” matter for the national economy and declined to participate in the Supreme Court hearings over his billion-dollar tariffs. His attorney is presenting the position with equally resolute formulations, underscoring the pressing nature of tariff decisions in the foreign policy context.
«President Trump has determined that our growing trade deficits have brought us to the brink of economic and national security catastrophe», said the U.S. Solicitor General for Appeals, John Saurer, adding caveats about a «ruthless tariff response» and «devastating economic and national consequences» that, in his words, await America if the court overturns the tariffs.
Saurer delivered his remarks from the bench in his usual brisk pace and with confidence, trying to convey the spirit of his client. The justices expressed significant skepticism about the claim of unilateral tariff authority, though several conservative judges also expressed doubts about the opponents’ positions.
«President Trump has determined that our growing trade deficits have brought us to the brink of economic and national security catastrophe.»
After nearly three hours of tense advocacy – during which Saurer was twice advised to slow down – the case looked almost even. While the lower courts were against Trump, the opponents did not lose momentum: a New York wine importer, an Illinois-based educational toy manufacturer, and a group of states argued in favor of stopping tariffs or revising them.
In the three liberal justices – Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson – they appeared ready to strike down the broad tariffs, while three of the six conservatives expressed caveats.
Yet Saurer had previously demonstrated surprising results: in 2024, while serving as Trump’s personal attorney, he achieved significant progress toward immunity from criminal prosecution.
A Look at the Future and Internal Deliberations
Regardless of the final decision by the justices, future negotiations and internal deliberations will take place behind closed doors. As is customary, the nine justices will gather on Friday in a small chamber near Chief Justice John Roberts’ chambers, after which the drafting of the opinions will begin, a process that could take weeks.
Chief Justice Roberts, as a rule, aims to write the Court’s decision in a case of such weight, but his signals were ambiguous. At first, he questioned Saurer’s interpretation of the 1981 case Dames & Moore v. Reagan, comparing the imposition of tariffs to the regulation of taxes – the “core” powers of Congress under the Constitution.
At the same time Roberts partly underscored the usefulness of tariffs in foreign policy, noting that they had been useful for Trump in dealings with other countries.
«Tariff measures are a tax, and that is the core power of Congress. But it’s a tax that relates to foreign affairs, doesn’t it? And foreign affairs are the primary prerogative of the executive branch.»
«I don’t think you can simply separate that. When you say: “It’s a tax, the powers of Congress,” you are directly touching on the president’s foreign policy powers,» Roberts added during the discussion.
Regarding the use of IEEPA – the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act – Barrett noted that it provides no direct basis for tariffs. She raised questions about the possibility of applying this provision in the context of the current disputes and what restitution would look like in the event of erroneous tariffs.
«If you win, tell me how the reimbursement process would work. Will it be a complete mess?»
In the chamber, Saurer continued his arguments in a characteristic gray suit and a low baritone, maintaining a determined tone. He is a former Duke University wrestling champion, holds a Harvard Law School degree, and interned for the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
In his remarks, Saurer tried to separate politics from legal analysis: before the hearings he sent a letter to the appeals court asking that the tariffs remain in effect during the dispute, invoking one of the president’s favorite rhetorical devices.
«A year ago the United States was a “dead country,” and now, because of trillions of dollars paid by nations that have so abused us, America is once again strong, financially viable, and internationally respected.»
In subsequent remarks, Saurer cited the Dames & Moore decision and emphasized that “this decision recognized the strongest possible presumption of the president’s actions being permissible” under IEEPA, but Roberts warned against overreliance on this precedent.
Ultimately, the hearings continued, weaving in references to prior cases and current political realities. The final decision may come later, but for now the resolution should set the course in tariffs and U.S. foreign policy.
Related news for you:
- The US Supreme Court expresses skepticism over Trump’s use of emergency powers to impose tariffs, a case with major economic and political implications for trade policy and businesses.
- Ukrainian streaming platforms remove content featuring Russian actor Yuri Kolokolnikov after his inclusion on the national security threat list by the Ministry of Culture.
- The US Supreme Court will soon review the legality of tariffs imposed by Donald Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, potentially impacting US trade policy and billions in tariff revenues.
