Washington — President Trump’s administration asked the Supreme Court late Wednesday to review a federal appeals court decision that found many of his tariffs are illegal, warning that the ruling threatens to “unilaterally disarm the United States and allow other nations to hold America’s economy hostage to their retaliatory trade policies.”
The appeal from the Justice Department was expected. Mr. Trump said this week that his administration would turn to the high court and ask it to speed up consideration of the case. The case has not yet been docketed by the Supreme Court.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in a 7-4 decision last Friday that Mr. Trump did not have the authority to impose sweeping tariffs under a federal emergency powers law, derailing a major component of Mr. Trump’s economic agenda. But the appeals court said its ruling will not take effect until at least Oct. 14 to allow the Justice Department time to seek the Supreme Court’s review.
The administration wants the Supreme Court to decide whether a federal emergency powers law called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, authorizes the tariffs imposed by Mr. Trump, and whether the law unconstitutionally delegates legislative authority to the president.
It could be weeks before the high court decides whether to weigh in on the legality of Mr. Trump’s tariffs and, if it decides to do so, months before a decision is handed down.
The president has warned that “our country is going to suffer greatly” if the Supreme Court upholds the lower court’s decision on the tariffs.
“The stakes in this case could not be higher. The President and his Cabinet officials have determined that the tariffs are promoting peace and unprecedented economic prosperity, and that the denial of tariff authority would expose our nation to trade retaliation without effective defenses and thrust America back to the brink of economic catastrophe,” the administration said in a filing. “To the President and his most senior advisors, these tariffs thus present a stark choice: With tariffs, we are a rich nation; without tariffs, we are a poor nation.”
Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote the Federal Circuit’s ruling jeopardizes framework agreements that the Trump administration has negotiated with a handful of trading partners and puts ongoing talks at risk.
The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to expedite its review of the case. It proposed that the justices decide whether to take up the issue by next week, with all briefs due by late October and oral arguments in early November — an unusually fast timeline for the high court. The Justice Department included a statement from Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent that argued a quick resolution is necessary because the appeals court ruling “gravely undermines the President’s ability to conduct real-world diplomacy.”
Sauer indicated in the filing that the plaintiffs in the case agreed to the proposed schedule.
Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel of the Liberty Justice Center, which is representing a group of small businesses that challenged the tariffs, said he is confident they will prevail before the Supreme Court.
“These unlawful tariffs are inflicting serious harm on small businesses and jeopardizing their survival,” he said in a statement Wednesday. “We hope for a prompt resolution of this case for our clients.”
The tariffs at issue in the case include those imposed by Mr. Trump through executive action taken in April that set a 10% baseline rate on nearly every country and higher “reciprocal” tariffs on dozens of trading partners. It also involves a set of duties imposed on imports from Canada, Mexico and China in response to what Mr. Trump said is their failure to address the trafficking of fentanyl into the U.S.
The Federal Circuit upheld a May ruling from the U.S. Court of International Trade that found Mr. Trump exceeded his authority when he issued his tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA.
But the levies are still in effect despite the Federal Circuit’s decision, since it tossed out a permanent injunction issued by the trade court that universally blocked enforcement of the tariffs.
In its unsigned decision, the Federal Circuit said that the right to impose tariffs are a “core congressional power.” The majority said in other statutes delegating tariff power to the president, Congress has set “specific substantive limitations and procedural guidelines” to be followed when leaving those duties.
“It seems unlikely that Congress intended, in enacting IEEPA, to depart from its past practice and grant the President unlimited authority to impose tariffs,” the court wrote. “The statute neither mentions tariffs (or any of its synonyms) nor has procedural safeguards that contain clear limits on the President’s power to impose tariffs.”
Mr. Trump has used tariffs and the threat of higher rates as leverage to force trading partners into negotiations, and said the duties are crucial to returning manufacturing jobs to the U.S. He has announced frameworks of trade deals with countries like the United Kingdom, the European Union, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines.
Wednesday’s court filing argued that IEEPA gives the president “broad discretion” to regulate trade, including by imposing tariffs.
“There is nothing new or suspect about IEEPA’s broad delegation of tariff authority to address national emergencies,” Sauer wrote. “Congress has long supplemented the President’s Article II foreign-affairs powers by delegating capacious authority to impose tariffs that, in the President’s judgment, will advance national security, foster economic prosperity, or facilitate negotiations with foreign counterparts.”
Read the Trump administration’s request to the Supreme Court on tariffs
Jacob Rosen
contributed to this report.
