Is Appeals Court order a path to legalise Trump Tariffs via Supreme Court?

At the heart of expectations for the Supreme Court's involvement is its 6-3 conservative majority, often seen as sympathetic to expansive executive authority

author-image
Shailesh Khanduri
New Update
Donald Trump

Donald Trump (File photo)

New Delhi: On August 29, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit delivered a significant blow to President Donald Trump's trade policy, ruling 7-4 that his broad use of tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) was largely illegal. 

The court argued that IEEPA, enacted in 1977 to allow presidents to impose sanctions during national emergencies, does not authorise tariffs as a general trade tool, as this encroaches on Congress's constitutional authority over commerce and taxation. 

However, the ruling is stayed until October 14, 2025, giving the Trump administration time to appeal to the Supreme Court, where the tariffs remain in effect for now. 

This sets the stage for a high-stakes showdown at the nation's highest court, where expectations lean toward a reversal that could bolster executive power.

The dispute stems from Trump's invocation of IEEPA to impose tariffs on a wide array of imports, framing economic competition, particularly with China, as a national emergency. 

Critics, including small businesses and importers, challenged this in lower courts, arguing it bypassed Congress and imposed undue economic burdens, potentially leading to billions in refunds if invalidated.

The Federal Circuit's decision affirmed a lower court's finding, emphasising that tariffs function as taxes, a domain reserved for legislative action under Article I of the Constitution. 

IEEPA has been used over 60 times since its inception, primarily for sanctions against foreign adversaries, but Trump's expansion to trade policy marked a novel, and controversial, application.

Legal experts have long debated whether this stretches the law beyond its intent, with some viewing it as a test of presidential overreach in an era of gridlocked Congress. 

What does the Supreme Court's conservative majority imply

At the heart of expectations for the Supreme Court's involvement is its 6-3 conservative majority, often seen as sympathetic to expansive executive authority, especially in areas like national security and foreign affairs. 

This composition, bolstered by Trump's three appointees (Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett), has consistently ruled in favor of presidential discretion in recent years. 

A conservative majority here could mean a higher likelihood of reversing the appeals court and upholding Trump's actions, as it aligns with the court's recent pattern of endorsing a "unitary executive" theory, where the president wields significant unilateral power. 

For instance, in the 2024 case Trump v. United States, the court granted broad immunity to presidents for official acts, signaling deference to executive decisions. 

Similarly, rulings like the 2023 West Virginia v. EPA decision curtailed agency overreach but preserved presidential leeway in emergency contexts. 

Analysts predict a 5-4 or 6-3 vote in Trump's favour if the court grants certiorari (agrees to hear the case), drawing on dissents from the appeals court that argue IEEPA's broad language permits such tariffs. 

Legal commentators and observers largely anticipate a pro-Trump outcome. One analyst noted that the Supreme Court's conservative tilt makes reversal "the most likely outcome," potentially in a split decision that reaffirms executive tools for economic policy. 

Others suggest the court might issue an indefinite stay on the ruling while deliberating, possibly mooting the case if Trump adjusts his tariffs in the interim. 

Dissenting opinions from the Federal Circuit, such as Judge Taranto's, are expected to form the basis for a Supreme Court reversal, emphasising IEEPA's sweeping delegation of power to the executive. 

However, not all views are uniform. Some predict the court could uphold the appeals decision, limiting presidential trade authority and forcing refunds of up to $150 billion in collected tariffs. 

If heard in the 2025-2026 term, a ruling might come by mid-2026, reshaping U.S. trade precedents. 

The Atlantic Council has highlighted this as a collision course between Trump's agenda and judicial scrutiny, potentially redefining the balance between branches. 

Conversely, an invalidation might push trade disputes back to Congress, fostering more bipartisan deals but risking paralysis in divided governments. 

For global partners like India, the EU, and Japan, the outcome could stabilise or disrupt ongoing trade pacts negotiated under these tariffs.

tariffs Trade Wars trade war US economy Donald Trump US supreme court