Donald Trump’s administration urged the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday to quickly hear a bid to preserve his broad tariffs, imposed under a 1977 emergency-law framework, after a lower court struck down most of the levies central to the former president’s economic and trade agenda.
The Justice Department appealed an August 29 ruling by a federal appeals court that found the president exceeded his authority in invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), challenging a key Trump priority in his second term.
The administration asked the high court to fast-track review by deciding whether to take up the case by September 10 and to schedule arguments in November, given that the court’s new term starts on October 6.
“The stakes in this case could not be higher,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in a formal filing.
“The President and his cabinet officials have determined that the tariffs are promoting peace and unprecedented economic prosperity, and that denying tariff authority would expose our nation to trade retaliation without effective defenses and thrust America back to the brink of economic catastrophe,” Sauer argued.
Lawyers representing small businesses challenging the tariffs do not oppose the government’s request for Supreme Court review. One attorney, Jeffrey Schwab of Liberty Justice Center, stated they remain confident they will prevail.
“These unlawful tariffs are inflicting serious harm on small businesses and jeopardizing their survival. We hope for a prompt resolution of this case for our clients,” Schwab commented.
The tariffs form part of a broader trade strategy launched by Trump since returning to the presidency in January. The measures have unsettled trading partners, increased market volatility, and fueled global economic uncertainty, with Trump making tariffs a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy to pressure partners and renegotiate deals.
The legal fight centers on Trump’s use of IEEPA to impose what he calls “reciprocal” tariffs to address trade deficits in April, along with separate tariffs announced in February aimed at China, Canada, and Mexico to curb fentanyl and other illicit drug trafficking.
IEEPA authorizes the president to respond to an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to national security, and it has historically been used to sanction or freeze assets of adversaries. Before Trump, the statute had never been used to impose tariffs.
The Justice Department has argued that IEEPA’s emergency provisions allow tariffs that regulate or block imports.
The appeals court’s ruling grew out of two challenges: one from five small-business importers, including a New York wine and spirits importer and a Pennsylvania sport-fishing retailer; the other from 12 states—Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Vermont—most of them led by Democrats.
Under the Constitution, Congress—not the president—has the power to tax and impose tariffs, and any delegation of that authority must be explicit and limited, the lawsuits contend.
In a 7-4 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C., said the president’s regulatory power under IEEPA does not include tariff-imposing authority. It also warned that the administration’s broad reading of IEEPA conflicts with the Supreme Court’s “major questions” doctrine, which requires Congress to authorize actions of substantial economic and political significance.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, in a declaration filed with the appeal, urged the Supreme Court to act swiftly, arguing that the appeals court’s decision undermines Trump’s ability to conduct real-world diplomacy and to safeguard the nation’s security and economy.
A separate ruling from the New York-based Court of International Trade, which handles customs issues, previously rejected Trump’s tariff policy on May 28. Another court in Washington held that IEEPA does not authorize the tariffs, and the government has also appealed that decision. At least eight lawsuits have challenged Trump’s tariff policies, including one brought by California.
The administration’s appeal arrives as another major legal confrontation over the independence of the Federal Reserve appears likely to reach the Supreme Court, foreshadowing what could become a broader legal showdown over Trump’s economic policy in the months ahead.