![\"Victor](\"https:\/\/missouriindependent.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/tariffsnov52025-1024x769.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Victor Schwartz, founder and president of VOS Selections, spoke to reporters outside the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday, Nov. 5, 2025. Schwartz, a New York-based wine and spirits importer of 40 years, was the lead plaintiff in the case against President Donald Trump’s sweeping emergency tariffs. (Photo by Ashley Murray\/States Newsroom)<\/p>\n
WASHINGTON \u2014 The U.S. Supreme Court during lengthy arguments Wednesday weighed whether President Donald Trump violated the Constitution when he became the first U.S. president to impose sweeping global tariffs under an economic emergency powers statute usually reserved to combat rare and unusual threats.<\/p>\n
Justices in both the conservative 6-3 majority and liberal minority questioned the sweeping presidential power the administration is claiming under IEEPA, including Chief Justice John Roberts. Questions about how Trump officials interpret the statute and view its limits, or lack thereof, revealed their skepticism.<\/p>\n
Members of the president\u2019s Cabinet, members of Congress and even comedian John Mulaney packed into the high court for the first major case of Trump\u2019s second term to be fully argued before the justices.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Tariffs are the centerpiece of Trump\u2019s foreign policy, and he credits them in his recent negotiations to reach several unfinalized trade framework agreements with the European Union, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam and China, among other nations.<\/p>\n
For nearly three hours the justices poked and prodded at the language of the International Economic Emergency Powers Act, or IEEPA, a 1970s-era sanctions law that Trump has invoked since January in a series of emergency declarations and proclamations triggering import taxes on goods from nearly every country.<\/p>\n
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent sat shoulder-to-shoulder with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and U.S. Trade Representative Jamison Greer.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Not far down the crowded rows were U.S. House Ways and Means Chairman Jason Smith, R-Mo., Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Democratic Sens. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Ed Markey of Massachusetts.<\/p>\n
Mulaney sat a few rows from the back, and was reportedly there to support former Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal, who argued Wednesday on behalf of several private small businesses who sued Trump over the tariffs. Katyal, who served under President Barack Obama and hosts the \u201cCOURTSIDE\u201d podcast, has collaborated with Mulaney on his show.<\/p>\n
The case centered on whether the president has unilateral authority to impose tariffs under IEEPA.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Trump became the first president to ever invoke import taxes under the 1977 emergency powers law, which has traditionally used sanctions to control economic transactions of hostile groups and individuals. For example, IEEPA was first invoked during the 1979 Iran hostage crisis and later used to freeze assets of terrorist groups after 9\/11. In all, presidents have declared 77 national emergencies under the statute.<\/p>\n
Small business owners who challenged Trump\u2019s usage of the law argued the president doesn\u2019t have the authority to tax them, and that the policy is upending their livelihoods.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Since Trump declared emergencies around fentanyl smuggling and imbalanced trade relationships, U.S. businesses have been paying anywhere from 10% to upwards of 50% on imports, depending on country of origin.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s American businesses like mine and American consumers that are footing the bill for the billions of dollars collected,\u201d Victor Schwartz, founder and president of the family-owned wine and spirits importer VOS Selections and lead plaintiff, said outside the courthouse following arguments.<\/p>\n
Small businesses and Democratic state attorneys general led the charge in the two separate cases, consolidated before the Supreme Court. They allege Trump usurped taxing power, which belongs to Congress as outlined in Article I of the Constitution.<\/p>\n
Schwartz\u2019s fellow plaintiffs included a Utah-based plastics producer, a Virginia-based children\u2019s electricity learning kit maker, a Pennsylvania-based fishing gear company and a Vermont-based women\u2019s cycling apparel company.<\/p>\n
Among the state officials who also joined the suit were state attorneys general from Arizona, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico and Oregon.<\/p>\n
Two Illinois-based toy makers that primarily manufacture products in Asia filed a separate challenge.<\/p>\n
The Trump administration argues tariffs are a necessary tool to achieve economic and national security goals. Officials claim the president\u2019s power to impose duties under IEEPA is spelled out in the statute\u2019s language authorizing the president to \u201cregulate\u201d importation and exportation during times of an \u201cunusual and extraordinary threat.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cOne of the most natural applications of that is the power to tariff,\u201d U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer \u2014 the former Missouri solicitor general \u2014 said in response to questioning by Justice Sonia Sotomayor.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cSo when Congress confers the power to regulate imports, it is, naturally, conferring the power to tariff,\u201d Sauer continued.<\/p>\n
Chief Justice Roberts asked Sauer to clarify the \u201cmajor power\u201d he claimed was granted in the statute.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe exercise of the power is to impose tariffs, right? And the statute doesn\u2019t use the word tariffs?\u201d Roberts said.<\/p>\n
\u201cBut it uses the words \u2018regulate importations,\u2019 and historically, a core, central application of that, a big piece of that, has always been to tariff,\u201d Sauer answered, speaking at a quick and excited pace.<\/p>\n
Justice Elena Kagan asked Sauer why a president would ever use any of the other specific and constraint-bound tariff powers delegated by Congress if IEEPA \u201cgives the president the opportunity to blow past those limits.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cBecause if you look at Title 19 (of the U.S. Code), which is loaded with tariffs and duties of various kinds, all of them have real constraints on them. They are, you know, you can\u2019t go over X percent, or it can\u2019t last more than one year. And of course, the way you interpret this statute, it has none of those constraints,\u201d Kagan said.<\/p>\n
Sauer responded that IEEPA \u201chas its own constraints.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThe president has to make a formal declaration of a national emergency, which subjects him to particularly intensive oversight by Congress, repeated natural lapsing, repeated review reports and so forth,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
Kagan swiftly interjected: \u201cI mean, you yourself think that the declaration of emergency is unreviewable, and even if it\u2019s not unreviewable, it is, of course, the kind of determination that this Court would grant considerable deference to the president on, so that doesn\u2019t seem like much of a constraint.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cAnd in fact, you know, we\u2019ve had cases recently which deal with the president\u2019s emergency powers, and it turns out we\u2019re in emergencies, about everything all the time, about like half the world,\u201d Kagan said, to laughter in the courtroom.<\/p>\n
Trump has petitioned the high court numerous times in 2025, putting cases regarding mass layoffs and immigration on the justices\u2019 unofficial shadow docket, which bypasses a full argument process.<\/p>\n
Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked why of the nearly 70 emergencies declared under IEEPA in past decades, none of them have invoked tariffs as a solution.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhy do you think Presidents, Clinton, Bush, Obama, have not used IEEPA to impose tariffs? Because there have been trade disputes, certainly President Bush, steel imports and the like. Why do you think IEEPA has not been used?\u201d Kavanaugh asked.<\/p>\n
Sauer answered: \u201cWhen you go through them one at a time, which we had our team do, it\u2019s really hard to find one when you look at that emergency, you say, \u2018Oh, tariffs is the natural tool you would use to address that emergency.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n
There are also \u201cpolitical reasons,\u201d Sauer added. \u201cI think that it\u2019s no question that President Trump is by far the most comfortable with the tariffs as a tool, both economic and foreign policy, than many of others.\u201d<\/p>\n
Trump began imposing tariffs under IEEPA through a series of executive orders and proclamations in February and March on products from China, Canada and Mexico, declaring these countries responsible for illegal fentanyl smuggling into the United States.<\/p>\n