US Supreme Court skips Trump tariffs ruling again
What's the story
The US Supreme Court has deferred its decision on a key legal challenge to President Donald Trump's tariff regime. The case concerns whether Trump overstepped his authority in imposing global tariff measures. The justices are now heading into a four-week recess, pushing the earliest possible date for a ruling to February 20, when the court is expected to release opinions.
Tariff details
The case revolves around Trump's 'Liberation Day' tariff initiative
The case revolves around Trump's broad tariff rollout on April 2, known as his "Liberation Day" initiative. The measures imposed duties of up to 50% on a wide range of imports, along with separate levies on goods from Canada, Mexico, and China. The administration defended these actions citing concerns over fentanyl trafficking and national security under a 1977 statute that gives presidents special authority during declared emergencies.
Legal concerns
Justices express doubts over the law's applicability
During arguments on November 5, several justices expressed doubts about the applicability of the law for tariffs of such magnitude and extent. The court's decision to expedite the challenge had led critics to expect a relatively quick ruling. However, its failure to do so today has extended uncertainty for governments and businesses alike, including India which faces a combined tariff burden of 50%.
Possible outcomes
Potential implications of a ruling against the administration
A ruling against the administration could have major implications, potentially triggering over $130 billion in tariff refunds and diminishing Trump's ability to threaten new trade penalties. It would also be his biggest courtroom defeat since returning to the White House. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has defended the strategy, arguing that they're using "the economic might of the US to avoid a hot war."
Strategy shift
Trump's warning and potential backup plans
Trump has warned that if the Supreme Court rules against the US on this "National Security bonanza," they would be in trouble. The case is now seen as a major test of presidential trade powers and whether the court will limit executive authority. Administration officials have hinted at backup plans, with trade adviser Jamieson Greer suggesting Trump could use other laws like Section 301 if the court limits presidential authority under the emergency statute.