Alleged abuse of power! Trump's tariff policy faces strong resistance in the US Supreme Court.

The "Global Tariffs" policy introduced by President Trump is facing strong opposition from the Supreme Court this week. Several justices expressed doubts about Trump's use of emergency economic powers to impose high tariffs during a hearing that lasted two and a half hours, suggesting that he may have overstepped his authority. If the tariffs are ultimately ruled illegal, the US government may face pressure to refund over $100 billion, impacting the future boundaries of presidential power in trade policy. Even conservative justices nominated by Trump himself raised questions about his tariff justification during the hearing. Chief Justice Roberts pointed out that tariffs are essentially a tax measure, and taxation has always been a core power of Congress. Justice Gorsuch even stated that, according to the logic of the Trump administration, Congress seems to be able to delegate all trade and even war powers to the president. Justice Barrett also raised sharp questions, asking the government to explain whether "regulating imports" is equivalent to "imposing tariffs." The case in question relates to the "Liberation Day Tariffs" announced by Trump on April 2, 2025, which impose tariffs of between 10% and 50% on most US imports from certain countries. Trump claimed that this was done to address the long-standing trade deficit issue of the US, and also involved additional tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China, justified by combating fentanyl smuggling. Three lower courts had previously ruled the tariffs illegal, making this case one of the most watched trade law disputes in recent years at the Supreme Court. The Trump administration argues that its tariff authority comes from the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA), which allows the president to take action in cases of national security or economic emergencies. However, the text of the law does not explicitly authorize the president to impose tariffs, only to "regulate imports." Justice Gorsuch expressed concerns about this explanation, warning that if the president can freely expand emergency powers, it would undermine the fiscal and trade legislative powers granted to Congress by the Constitution. Justice Barrett also questioned whether there were any historical precedents supporting this interpretation, but government lawyers were unable to provide specific examples. Nevertheless, some conservative judges remain cautious. For example, Kavanaugh pointed out that since the IEEPA allows the president to completely ban imports from a country, imposing tariffs is a relatively mild measure and may not be an absolute overreach. Barrett raised another practical issue: if the court rules the tariffs illegal, how will the US government handle the massive refunds? She described this as potentially causing "administrative chaos," and lawyers admitted that the refund process would be "very complex." The case attracted a large number of government officials and politicians, including Treasury Secretary Benson, Commerce Secretary Lutnick, and US Trade Representative Gril, as well as several members of Congress. If Trump loses this case, it not only means that the substantial tariff funds will need to be returned to importers, but it will also limit the ability of future presidents to unilaterally intervene in trade under the guise of a "national emergency." Analysts believe this will bring tariff authority back into a framework dominated by Congress, with far-reaching implications for US executive power. If Trump wins, it means that future presidents can make significant adjustments to tariff policy without congressional approval, leading to a significant expansion of executive power. The case is expected to be decided by the end of this year and will become one of the most crucial administrative power precedents at the Supreme Court during the Trump era.