WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s administration asked the Supreme Court on Wednesday to quickly decide whether he has the power to impose broad tariffs under a law designed for use during times of emergency.
The Justice Department is appealing a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Aug. 29 that said Trump had exceeded his authority, the filings said.
The filings, shared by the Justice Department and the challengers, have not yet been officially docketed by the Supreme Court.
Jeffrey Schwab, a lawyer for the Liberty Justice Center — which is representing businesses challenging the tariffs — said in a statement he was confident the court would rule against the president.
“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,” he added.
The appeals court, divided 7-4, said the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which allows the president to regulate imports when there is a national emergency, does not give sweeping powers to impose global tariffs of unspecified duration.
The tariffs are in effect and will remain in place until at least Oct. 14 under the appeals court ruling.
The administration submitted two filings: an appeal and a motion to expedite.
In the latter, Solicitor General D. John Sauer asked the justices to fast-track consideration of the case so that oral arguments can be heard as soon as the first week of November. That would require the court to decide by next week whether to hear the case.
The challengers have agreed to that timeline, a Liberty Justice Center spokesman said.
The appeals court’s “erroneous decision has disrupted highly impactful, sensitive, ongoing diplomatic trade negotiations, and cast a pall of legal uncertainty over the President’s efforts to protect our country by preventing an unprecedented economic and foreign-policy crisis,” Sauer wrote.
The filings included a declaration by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent citing the importance of a quick ruling.
“Swift review of that decision is necessary to avoid derailing critical ongoing negotiations with our foreign trading partners and threatening broader U.S. strategic interests internationally,” he wrote.
The high court has a 6-3 conservative majority, including three Trump appointees. Although it has frequently ruled in favor of Trump in the first few months of his term, some legal experts believe it may be more skeptical about his tariff powers.
During the Biden administration, the court was skeptical of the White House’s moves to seek broad powers via laws enacted by Congress that did not explicitly authorize them. In one significant example, the court, endorsing what has been dubbed the “major questions doctrine,” ruled against President Joe Biden’s plan to forgive student loan debt.
The case under appeal affects two sets of tariffs Trump has imposed. The first are the country-by-country or “reciprocal” tariffs, which now range from 34% for China to a 10% baseline for the rest of the world. The second is a 25% tariff Trump imposed on some goods from Canada, China and Mexico for what the administration said was their failure to curb the flow of fentanyl.
Other tariffs implemented under other laws, such as 50% steel and aluminum tariffs on all other worldwide trading partners, were implemented under other statutes not at issue in the case.
Even if Trump loses at the Supreme Court, he has other avenues to impose additional tariffs.
V.O.S. Selections Inc., a wine and spirits importer, and Plastic Services and Products, a pipe and fittings company, are among five businesses that sued Trump over his use of the emergency law. Twelve states also challenged the move.
The Court of International Trade initially blocked the tariffs in late May, prompting the Trump administration to appeal.
Trump has long sought to raise revenue by taxing imported goods, which he believes will revitalize manufacturing in the United States. While the tariffs are bringing in billions of dollars in revenue, economists say they are slowing U.S. economic growth, while inflation has also ticked up.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
