Trump appeals to Supreme Court to reinstate global tariffs

According to court documents, the appeal provides for consideration of the case in the maximally accelerated procedure with arguments already at the beginning of November.

At present, the introduced tariffs remain in force, since the Court of Appeals suspended its decision in order to give Trump time to try to appeal it to the Supreme Court.

Financial risks

The media outlet notes that financial stakes make the "tariff case" one of the largest in the entire history of the Supreme Court.

Bloomberg Economics analyst Chris Kennedy noted that Trump’s defeat in the case would lower the average current tariff in the USA from the present 16.3% at least by half and could force the government to return tens of billions of dollars. This could also ruin previous trade agreements that Trump achieved with some countries.

The chief lawyer of the administration in the Supreme Court (Solicitor General), John Sauer, told the court that the decision of the Court of Appeals "has jeopardized ongoing foreign negotiations and threatens framework deals."

"Left undisturbed, the decision below would, in the president’s view, unilaterally disarm the United States and allow other nations to hold America’s economy hostage to their retaliatory trade policies," Sauer noted.

The Department of Justice informed the judges that the opponents of tariffs agreed to a quick consideration of the case.

Expedited review

Bloomberg noted that consideration of the case at the beginning of November would allow the court to render a decision by the end of the year. However, according to the regulations, the term of its consideration lasts until mid-2026.

The probability that the Supreme Court will win this case is very high, but everything will depend on the judges. The Trump administration asked to adopt a final decision by September 10.

The challenged taxes include Trump’s tariffs from April 2 called "Liberation Day", which provide for tariffs from 10% to 50% on most imported goods into the USA depending on the country of origin.

The media outlet reminded that the customs tariffs from April 2 became the largest increase of import taxes in the USA since 1930, when the Smoot–Hawley tariffs acted, and raised the average level of tariffs in the country to the highest mark for more than a century.

Trump positioned tariffs as critically important to level the playing field for American companies and workers against the background of chronic trade deficits.

However, officials in his administration publicly downplayed the significance of court proceedings, stating that most of the president's tariffs can be introduced through other methods.

At the same time, Trump’s tariffs on steel, aluminum and automobiles this challenge does not directly concern, since they were introduced under another law.

Tariffs regarding Canada and Mexico

Trump’s appeal also covers tariffs, which the president introduced regarding Canada, Mexico, and China, substantiating this by the fight against the trade of fentanyl. The case consists of separate lawsuits filed by states under the leadership of Democrats and by a group of small businesses.

Bloomberg is convinced that this appeal will become a test for the Supreme Court with a conservative majority, which until now mostly sided with Trump in questions where he claimed powers that his predecessors never had.

If the judges agree to consider the case, they will face a law that gives the president a number of instruments to respond to emergencies in the sphere of national security, foreign policy, and economy, but it does not directly mention tariffs as one of such instruments.

What the Constitution says

The Constitution of the USA transfers the powers regarding tariffs to Congress, and the key question of the case lies in whether legislators delegated this right to the president.

The Supreme Court in similar cases earlier demanded that Congress clearly write out the transfer of its powers in questions of great economic or political significance.

Solicitor General John Sauer told the judges that "the power to ‘regulate importation’ encompasses the power to impose tariffs or duties on imports".

Plaintiffs in courts of lower instance also argued that the trade deficit is not that “unusual and extraordinary threat” which the law requires for triggering emergency presidential powers.

"A ruling for Trump on that issue potentially would leave few if any limits on the president’s ability to declare an emergency and then impose additional tariffs as a response," summed up Bloomberg.

The case regarding Trump’s customs tariffs

In April, President of the USA Donald Trump introduced unprecedented tariffs on imports from more than 180 countries. Rates fluctuated from 10 to 50%.

However, on April 9, Trump suspended these tariffs. The USA began negotiations about the introduction of additional tariffs with more than 75 countries, which addressed a proposal for negotiations.

After several postponements, from August 1 tariffs for countries with which the USA did not sign agreements came into force.

However, at the end of August, the Court of Appeals of the USA recognized the customs tariffs of the Trump administration as illegal.

The decision left in force the verdict of the US Court of International Trade. Both courts ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 does not grant the president the right to impose such large-scale import taxes despite the provision about the possibility of "regulating" the import of property for the settlement of an emergency.

In response to such a decision, Trump stated that the cancellation of customs tariffs would become a catastrophe for the country's economy.