Copyright thejournal
We need your help now Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open. You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough. If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it. One-off amount I already contribute Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you. An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more. Investigates Investigates Money Diaries The Journal TV Climate Crisis Cost of Living Road Safety Newsletters Temperature Check Inside the Newsroom The Journal Investigates Daft.ie Property Allianz Home The 42 Sport TG4 Entertainment The Explainer A deep dive into one big news story Sport meets news, current affairs, society & pop culture have your say Or create a free account to join the discussion Advertisement More Stories Donald Trump displays a chart with his tariff rates while announcing them in April.Alamy Stock Photo Not Convinced US Supreme Court justices appear sceptical that Trump's tariffs are legal The court is hearing a landmark case that could uphold – or upend – the US president’s economic agenda. 9.29pm, 5 Nov 2025 Share options A MAJORITY OF US Supreme Court justices appeared deeply sceptical of the legality behind a swath of Donald Trump’s tariffs today, as they heard a landmark case that could uphold – or upend – the president’s economic agenda. Billions of dollars in customs revenue and a key lever in Trump’s trade wars are at stake, as the conservative-dominated panel once again grappled with the Republican leader’s attempts to expand presidential powers. The court’s nine justices are considering Trump’s use of emergency powers to impose so-called “reciprocal” tariffs on nearly every US trade partner, as well as levies targeting Mexico, Canada and China over their alleged roles in illicit drug flows. Several conservative justices, along with the three liberals, questioned whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) that Trump invoked also confers the authority to impose tariffs. “The statute doesn’t use the word tariffs,” said Chief Justice John Roberts. The justices also sought to clarify whether Congress has to give clear authorisation for policies with significant economic or political consequences. Solicitor General John Sauer, arguing on behalf of the Trump administration, said this did not apply given the president’s inherent, broad range of authorities. He added that one would expect Congress to confer major powers on the president to address foreign international crises. Advertisement Sauer sought to frame the issue as one involving the power to regulate foreign commerce – including the ability to impose tariffs – rather than the power to tax. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a liberal, noted that the power to impose taxes is a “congressional power, not a presidential power.” “You want to say tariffs are not taxes, but that’s exactly what they are,” she added. ‘Simply implausible’ Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, questioned if Congress could reclaim powers once it delegates them to the presidency, suggesting that “as a practical matter in the real world, it can never get that power back.” Demonstrators outside the US Supreme Court in Washington, where the justices were hearing arguments on Trump's tariffs.Alamy Stock Photo Alamy Stock Photo Neal Katyal, representing small businesses challenging Trump’s tariffs, charged that it was “simply implausible” that in enacting IEEPA, Congress “handed the president the power to overhaul the entire tariff system and the American economy in the process.” The court’s decision, which could take months to arrive, does not concern sector-specific tariffs Trump separately imposed, including on steel, aluminum and automobiles. Since returning to the White House, Trump has brought the average effective tariff rate to its highest since the 1930s. A lower court ruled in May that he had exceeded his authority, with the case ultimately making its way to the Supreme Court. Trump has hyped the case as “one of the most important” in US history and repeatedly warned of calamity if his tariffs are overturned. He did not attend today’s hearing, despite floating the provocative idea, but several top officials did, including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer. Related Reads US Supreme Court to decide fate of Trump's tariffs in November Marion McKeone: All the experts say Trump's tariffs are unlawful. Will the Supreme Court agree? “In recent years, the court has been reluctant to overrule presidential decisions of this magnitude,” ING analysts said in a note today. But they said this case is hard to predict, as “upholding Trump’s tariffs would shift the balance of power from Congress to the President, further enhancing his executive power.” Businesses, lawmakers and former US officials filed around 40 legal briefs against the president’s global tariffs, while only a few briefs supported his actions. Although Trump’s tariffs have not sparked widespread inflation, companies and particularly small firms say they bear the brunt of higher import costs. Lawyers note that if the top court finds Trump’s global tariffs illegal, the government can tap other laws to impose up to 15 percent tariffs for 150 days, while pursuing pathways for more lasting duties. Countries that have already struck tariff deals with Trump may therefore prefer not to reopen negotiations. © AFP 2025 View 5 comments Send Tip or Correction Embed this post To embed this post, copy the code below on your site Email “US Supreme Court justices appear sceptical that Trump's tariffs are legal”. Recipient's Email Feedback on “US Supreme Court justices appear sceptical that Trump's tariffs are legal”. Your Feedback Your Email (optional) Report a Comment Please select the reason for reporting this comment. Please give full details of the problem with the comment... This is YOUR comments community. Stay civil, stay constructive, stay on topic. Please familiarise yourself with our comments policy before taking part. Leave a Comment Submit a report Please help us understand how this comment violates our community guidelines. Damaging the good reputation of someone, slander, or libel. Racism or Hate speech An attack on an individual or group based on religion, race, gender, or beliefs. Trolling or Off-topic An attempt to derail the discussion. Inappropriate language Profanity, obscenity, vulgarity, or slurs. Advertising, phishing, scamming, bots, or repetitive posts. Please provide additional information Thank you for the feedback Your feedback has been sent to our team for review. Leave a commentcancel Newly created accounts can only comment using The Journal app. This is to add an extra layer of security to account creation. Download and sign into the app to continue. Access to the comments facility has been disabled for this user View our policy ⚠️ Duplicate comment Post Comment have your say Or create a free account to join the discussion judgement day landmark case Not Convinced Supreme Court Trump Tariffs US Supreme Court News in 60 seconds Sorry scenes Rory McIlroy receives letter of apology after Ryder Cup abuse Man (21) charged with murder of Jordan Webb in Co Down 28 mins ago Mary May McGee: 'She left the country a little better than how she found it' InvestigatesFGM care in Europe Europe’s hidden wound - Female Genital Mutilation survivors' long wait for care Patricia Devlin behind the curtain Why this year's climate talks are big for Ireland - and six other things to tell you about COP30 Lauren Boland Director of Public Prosecutions Man accused of stabbing garda and terrorist activity has assault charge upgraded to 'serious harm' Here's What Happened Today: Wednesday stunning victory Democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani elected as New York City's youngest mayor in over a century InvestigatesFemale Genital Mutilation Over 330% increase in demand for Female Genital Mutilation treatment in Ireland Patricia Devlin Going Digital Government aiming for ‘digital wallet’ of life milestones by 2030 Diamond Park Damage caused by vandals to Dublin playground could cost €300k more from us Investigates Money Diaries The Journal TV Journal Media Advertise With Us About FactCheck Our Network FactCheck Knowledge Bank Terms & Legal Notices Terms of Use Cookies & Privacy Advertising Competition more from us TV Listings GAA Fixtures The Video Review Journal Media Advertise With Us Our Network The Journal FactCheck Knowledge Bank Terms & Legal Notices Terms of Use Cookies & Privacy Advertising Competition © 2025 Journal Media Ltd Terms of Use Cookies & Privacy Advertising Competition Switch to Desktop Switch to Mobile The Journal supports the work of the Press Council of Ireland and the Office of the Press Ombudsman, and our staff operate within the Code of Practice. You can obtain a copy of the Code, or contact the Council, at https://www.presscouncil.ie, PH: (01) 6489130, Lo-Call 1800 208 080 or email: mailto:info@presscouncil.ie Report an error, omission or problem: Your Email (optional) Create Email Alert Create an email alert based on the current article Email Address One email every morning As soon as new articles come online
