The U.S. Supreme Court held a milestone oral argument on November 5th regarding the legality of President Donald Trump’s global tariffs. Specifically, the justices were set to hear two cases: “Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump” and “Trump v. V.O.S. Selections”, with the argument expected to last at least 80 minutes, allowing each party to present their case. The oral arguments would include 40 minutes for the Trump administration and 20 minutes each for private enterprises challenging Trump’s policies and various states.
Regardless of the judgment, the case could have significant implications on the American economy and determine how much future presidents can adjust trade policies. Here are six key pieces of information to understand before the Supreme Court’s oral arguments.
At the core of these cases are the two categories of tariffs imposed earlier this year by the Trump administration. One category includes tariffs imposed on countries like Mexico, Canada, and China, while the other consists of a range of retaliatory tariffs imposed on countries worldwide.
These tariffs were imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. Trump was the first U.S. president to impose tariffs under this act. Historically, the 37th President Richard Nixon had invoked similar provisions in the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917, the predecessor to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, in 1971, declaring a trade emergency in the U.S. and imposing a 10% tariff on all imported goods.
In response to these three countries’ failure to stop illegal opioid trafficking into the U.S., Trump established fentanyl tariffs in February. According to the president’s executive order, the failure of these countries to effectively combat fentanyl trafficking led to a national emergency in the U.S., including a public health crisis.
President Trump cited cases of hundreds of thousands of Americans dying from drug overdoses and the impact of the drug crisis on the healthcare system, communities, and families. Mexico and Canada were also penalized for failing to curb illegal immigration.
In April, President Trump declared a national emergency and implemented retaliatory tariff measures. The reason for the emergency was unfair trade practices by other countries over decades in the form of tariff and non-tariff barriers, leading to persistent and significant trade deficits in the U.S.
President Trump’s executive order noted that the ongoing trade imbalance had threatened national and economic security by depleting U.S. manufacturing capacity, disrupting key supply chains, and making the defense industry dependent on foreign competitors.
President Trump had stated that winning this lawsuit was “crucial” for U.S. interests. In an interview with Fox Business in October, he mentioned that the U.S. had been under tariff attacks for years, leading to the decline of domestic industries.
President Trump highlighted using tariff threats as leverage, successfully averting several wars, including a conflict between Pakistan and India earlier this year.
According to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, as of September 23, tariff revenues collected under the emergency law in the 2025 fiscal year were close to $90 billion, nearly half of the total tariff revenue for that year.
A Department of Justice document indicated that the U.S. faced over $1 trillion in trade deficits, with the Congressional Budget Office estimating that tariffs would reduce the federal deficit by $400 billion.
So far, the Trump administration has reached trade agreements with several countries, including the UK, EU, Japan, and South Korea. These agreements have brought over $2 trillion in purchasing and investment commitments to the U.S.
If the government loses the case, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent stated that the government could invoke other powers to impose tariffs, albeit with less efficiency and effectiveness.
Multiple private enterprises urged the Supreme Court to reject the Trump administration’s lawsuits, arguing that the tariffs meant billions of dollars in additional taxes. Some external evaluation institutions also criticized these tariffs.
For example, in September, the Peterson Institute for International Economics based in Washington D.C. stated that U.S. businesses had absorbed most of the tariff costs in July, potentially leading to higher prices for consumers.
The Supreme Court was set to review whether these tariffs complied with the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The law authorizes the president to take various measures in emergency situations.
The act allows the president to declare a national emergency to address any situation that poses “unusual and extraordinary threats” to national security, foreign policy, or the economy.
In court, the Department of Justice defended the Trump administration’s imposition of tariffs under this law, noting a provision that allows the president to regulate imports.
The provision authorizes the president to “investigate, during the investigation to prevent, supervise, impose, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit any acquisition, holding, withholding, use, transfer, withdrawal, transportation, importation or exportation, or transaction involving, or exercising any right, power, or privilege with respect to, or involving any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest whatsoever.”
However, opponents argued that the tariff measures were not authorized by law, emphasizing that the provision did not explicitly mention “tariffs.”
Judges were expected to consider not only whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act allowed tariff imposition but also whether the law complied with the U.S. Constitution.
Since the Constitution grants tariff powers to Congress, a question arose: whether the broad tariff authority granted to the president under emergency laws violated the constitutional separation of powers.
Several federal courts, including the U.S. Court of International Trade and the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, had declared Trump’s tariffs illegal, but these courts had postponed the effective dates of blocking the tariffs.
Following the Supreme Court’s acceptance of the case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit suspended oral arguments in one of the cases. The Supreme Court was expected to review that case and another case ruled on by the U.S. Court of International Trade in May. The U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a ruling against Trump’s tariffs in August.
Both the D.C. District Court and the Federal Circuit Court pointed out that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act did not use the term “tariff.” The D.C. District Court stated that import controls refer to regulating imports through rules, while tariffs are taxes levied on imports or exports.
U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras noted that even if Congress authorized tariff imposition, it violated the nondelegation doctrine, which typically prohibits Congress from delegating its legislative authority to other entities. However, this doctrine has limitations, allowing Congress to delegate power with certain restrictions on how the president can use that power.
The Federal Circuit Court emphasized that if Congress intended to allow the president to impose large-scale tariffs like Trump did, clearer language must be used.
In briefs submitted to the Supreme Court, the Department of Justice presented multiple arguments supporting tariff imposition.
Additionally, the Department noted that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act explicitly authorized tariff imposition, with power to regulate imports including levying duties or taxes on imported goods.
The Department highlighted that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act aimed to replace the Trading with the Enemy Act, which used similar language and had been ruled by federal courts as authorizing President Nixon to impose tariffs.
The Department argued that applying the nondelegation doctrine to the president’s jurisdiction over foreign affairs under the Constitution was less stringent. Even if the principle applied, Congress had defined the president’s powers explicitly enough to meet its requirements.
While the outcome of the case was difficult to predict, both the arguments and previous court rulings indicated the Court’s focus on separation of powers. Under Chief Justice John Roberts’ leadership, the Court had used the Major Questions Doctrine to review large-scale policies of the executive branch.
The doctrine mandated that administrative agencies must receive clear authorization from Congress before making significant economic or political decisions. Notably, the Court had previously applied this doctrine to reject climate policies of President Barack Obama and student loan forgiveness plans of President Joe Biden.
The Federal Circuit Court cited these two cases in dismissing President Trump’s lawsuits. The Court compared the language used in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions Act (HEROES Act) invoked by the Biden administration for student loan relief. In both cases, the administration had exceeded the scope of congressional authorization.
In its majority opinion, the Court stated, “The administration’s decision to employ tariffs is of enormous economic and political significance.”
It pointed out that due to the importance of the matter, the government needed explicit authorization from Congress.
Apart from stating that the law clearly authorized tariff imposition, the Department of Justice also argued that the Major Questions Doctrine was inapplicable in this case since the rule applied to agencies.
“In this context, Congress directly conveyed the authority to the president,” the brief stated.
The government further indicated in its briefing that the Major Questions Doctrine had not been applied in the field of foreign affairs. It referenced a collaborative opinion by Justice Brett Kavanaugh from June.
“The Court has not yet applied the Major Questions Doctrine in the areas of national security or foreign policy because the doctrine does not reflect Congress’s usual legislative intent in these areas,” Kavanaugh noted in the opinion.
“Instead, the usual understanding is that Congress intends to give the President considerable powers and flexibility to protect the United States and its people,” he added.