Vermont
The Supreme Court hears challenges to Trump’s tariffs with Vermont ties – VTDigger
This story is based on stories by Violet Jira published on Nov. 5, 2025 by NOTUS, one before and one after the oral arguments.
The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday related to the legality of President Donald Trump’s use of tariffs in a case that won’t just be deciding the fate of his trade policy, but also could redefine the limits of presidential economic power.
The hearing involved appeals in a pair of cases that challenge the Trump administration’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, including one with Vermont ties. Trump has used the law to bypass procedural norms and place extensive tariffs on enemies and trading partners alike without authorization from Congress.
READ MORE
One of the cases includes Terry Precision Cycling, or Terry Cycling, a women’s cycling apparel company, as one of five small business plaintiffs. The group sued Trump and his administration in the U.S. Court of International Trade in April. In May, a panel of three federal judges struck down most of the president’s tariffs. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit also largely backed the plaintiffs. The case was combined with another brought by private organizations impacted by the tariffs in Wednesday’s arguments in the Supreme Court.
The court also heard from a representative of 12 attorneys general, including Vermont Attorney General Charity Clark, who sued on similar grounds.
During the arguments, Solicitor General D. John Sauer defended the Trump administration’s actions — sometimes by contradicting the president.
Sauer faced a slew of skeptical inquiries from the justices who seemed to take issue with many of the Trump administration’s arguments, including that the president has broad authority to respond to international emergencies, Congress delegated the presidency this power, and tariffs are not taxes.
Since the Constitution gives Congress the power to tax, the claim that tariffs are not a tax was central to Sauer’s argument, despite the fact that the president has framed them as revenue-raising.
“We don’t contend that what’s being exercised here is the power to tax,” Sauer said. “It’s the power to regulate foreign commerce. These are regulatory tariffs. They are not revenue raising tariffs.”
Trump regularly says tariffs are making the country richer. And earlier this year, the White House floated using tariffs as a revenue raiser to offset the cost of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who spoke recently at the University of Vermont, made clear that she didn’t buy Sauer’s argument on tariffs versus taxes.
“You say tariffs are not taxes, but that’s exactly what they are,” she said. “They’re generating money from American citizens, revenue.”
 100vw, 1200px”/><figcaption class=)
Burlington-based Terry Cycling , a women’s cycling apparel company, joined four other small businesses to sue President Donald Trump over his tariff policy. Courtesy photo.
‘Simply implausible’
How the justices decide the case will have major implications not just for Trump’s agenda but for how much unilateral power presidents have to regulate commerce.
During the arguments, Justice Neil Gorsuch leaned heavily into the question of congressional authority. He seemed to take issue with the fact that it would be difficult for Congress to reclaim that authority should the Supreme Court give the Trump administration what it was asking for.
“Congress, as a practical matter, can’t get this power back once it’s handed it over to the president. It’s a one way ratchet toward the gradual but continual accretion of power in the executive branch and away from the people’s elected representatives,” he argued.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett seemed skeptical of the scope of the reciprocal tariffs Trump has placed on dozens of countries, allies and trading partners alike.
“Is it your contention that every country needed to be tariffed because of threats to the defense and industrial base? I mean, Spain, France? I mean, I could see it with some countries, but explain to me why as many countries needed to be subject to the reciprocal tariff policy as are,” she asked.
The small businesses were represented by attorney Neal Katyal. He argued that tariffs are, in fact, a tax, and that the Trump administration was exceeding the authority Congress intended to give to the executive branch when it passed the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
“It’s 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, allowing him to set and reset tariffs on any and every product from any and every country at any and all times,” Katyal said.
“And as Justices Gorsuch and Barrett just said, this is a one-way ratchet,” he continued. “We will never get this power back if the government wins this case. What president wouldn’t veto legislation to rein this power in and pull out the tariff power?”
The Supreme Court has until the end of its term next summer to make a decision, but the case has so far been on an expedited track, leading some experienced court watchers to expect a decision before the end of the year.
Other routes for tariffs
The White House has projected confidence in its ability to win the case — press secretary Karoline Leavitt said officials believe the Supreme Court will rule in their favor. Still, contingency plans have long been in the works.
“The White House is always preparing for plan B,” she said at a briefing. “It would be imprudent of the president’s advisers not to prepare for such a situation. With that said, we are 100% confident in the president and his team’s legal argument and the merits of the law in this case, and we remain optimistic that the Supreme Court is going to do the right thing. The importance of this case cannot be overstated.”
Trump has used the threat of tariffs in matters far beyond trade. The administration used a tariff investigation to pressure Brazil over its decision to prosecute former President Jair Bolsonaro. Trump attempted to use trade negotiations to stop Canada from backing Palestinian statehood. The threat of steep tariffs has been an essential leverage point in his peace negotiations between countries like India and Pakistan, as well as Russia and Ukraine.
The Supreme Court’s decision could stymie all of this.
Administration officials have indicated that even if they lose the case, they would find another way to levy tariffs.
There are multiple legal avenues to enact tariffs. Top Trump trade adviser Peter Navarro has signaled the administration was considering use of Section 122 and then Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, if use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act is deemed unlawful.
Multiple trade experts NOTUS spoke to said this would be the most plausible course of action for Trump to keep his tariffs alive if the court rules against him.
Peter Harrell, who served as senior director for international economics and competitiveness in the Biden White House, said “the most obvious choice” for the White House to temporarily maintain tariffs would be to invoke Section 122. That would allow tariffs of up to 15% for as long as 150 days on countries whose trade with the U.S. is unjustifiably imbalanced.
“That, to me, looks like the sort of obvious, immediate stop gap they could pull to keep many of their tariffs in place for a couple of months while they figure out what the longer term plan is,” he said.
Section 301 of the trade act allows an administration to launch investigations into specific countries and implement tariffs based on the results of that investigation. There are already active Section 301 investigations into China, Brazil and Nicaragua; the latter two were started under the administration of President Joe Biden. The Trump administration could begin more of them, but the investigations take months and again open the administration up to the possibility of lawsuits.
Over the past few months, the Trump administration has expanded its use of Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which allows him to put restrictions on the import of certain goods if they are found after an investigation to threaten national security.
But none of these powers is as expansive as the International Economic Emergency Powers Act, which the Trump administration has used to enact crushing tariffs with the stroke of a pen.
The International Economic Emergency Powers Act “only requires a finding of a national emergency, which is a more unilateral power within the president to make that determination,” said Everett Eissenstat, a partner at Squire Patton Boggs who represented the Trump administration on international trade matters as deputy director of the National Economic Council during Trump’s first term. “There’s no investigation, there’s no congressional consultation, it’s just a declaration of emergency, and that unleashes the power to regulate commerce, regulate importation.”
He added that there “were certainly more limitations” on Section 301 and Section 232.
If the Supreme Court were to rule in the Trump administration’s favor, it’s possible that the ruling wouldn’t just give the administration the legal go-ahead on current tariff policy, but open the door for the International Economic Emergency Powers Act to be used even more broadly than Trump is currently using it.
For the importers, business owners, consumers and taxpayers who are impacted by the president’s trade and tariff policy, a decision from the Supreme Court in either direction is unlikely to offer significant relief from the pressures of the Trump tariff economy.
“Unfortunately, if you’re a business, you can celebrate a Supreme Court win if that’s the way it goes, but you’re not going to be off the hook,” Riley said. “Trump will continue to impose tariffs, continue to impose costs on Americans, but he just won’t have the unlimited authority that he’ll have if the Supreme Court allows the IEEPA tariffs to remain in place.”
MONTPELIER, Vt. (ABC22/FOX44) – Earlier this month, ABC22/FOX44 reported that members of Vermont’s Air National Guard would be sent to the Caribbean to take part in Operation Southern Spear.
Legislators from all three major political parties in Vermont wrote Tuesday about resources available for the families of the members sent out in the field. They said that Maj. Gen. Gregory Knight, Adjutant General of the Vermont National Guard, had officially confirmed the mobilization Monday.
“The uncertainty of a deployment is a stressful time for families, especially during the holiday. We thank our Vermont Guard Members and their families for their service to Vermont and our country. During this time, we encourage Vermonters to check in on their friends and neighbors impacted by this deployment.”
The “central hub” for family support the Vermont National Guard Family Programs Office. Its support line, (888) 607-8773, is available Monday through Friday from 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., with more available at its website at ngfamily.vt.gov.
Families can ask at the support line to be connected with a local volunteer support group as well (include link).
There are also six regional centers across the state in Montpelier, White River Junction, Rutland, South Burlington, Jericho, and St. Albans. The National Guard describes these as “resource and referral experts” that can help families connect with any services they may need.
Information on these is available at their own webpage. https://www.ngfamily.vt.gov/Programs-Services/Military-and-Family-Readiness-Centers/
Other resources include:
The Vermont National Guard Charitable Foundation: (802) 338-3076 or https://vtngcharitable.org/VTNGCF to apply.
Military OneSource, a federal referral program offered nationwide and 24/7: (800) 342-9647, www.militaryonesource.mil
Child and Youth Program Deployment Resources, with tools for children’s resilience during deployments: https://www.ngfamily.vt.gov/Resources/Youth-Deployment-Resources/
Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program, events held mid-deployment for children and families: contact Staff Sgt. Jessica Smith at jessica.m.smith308.mil@army.mil
Vermont 211: https://vermont211.org/
ChildCare Aware: https://www.childcareaware.org/state/vermont/
Hunger Free Vermont: https://www.hungerfreevt.org/
I was a senior in high school when 9/11 happened. I will never forget where I was or how the day unfolded. I wasn’t yet 18, but my entire adult life would be shaped by that event. Soon after, the U.S. invaded Afghanistan, and then Iraq. U.S. involvement in Afghanistan would last 21 years, and at one point Vermont would have the highest per-capita population of servicemembers serving in Afghanistan and Iraq in the nation.
Over the last three years as the Executive Director of the Vermont Afghan Alliance, I’ve met countless veterans, former aid workers, lawyers, contractors, and others who worked in Afghanistan. U.S. efforts focused on everything from counterterrorism and the rule of law to education and agriculture.
During the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021, the U.S. evacuated an estimated 125,000 Afghan allies. That was only a fraction of those who had worked with the U.S. government over two decades. An estimated 145,000 Afghans eligible for Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs) were left behind, along with countless wives and children. Many men evacuated in 2021 were told to leave their families behind with the promise of reunification within a year, yet separation continues.
The Vermont Afghan Alliance began in 2022 as a scrappy, GoFundMe-funded, volunteer-led effort to help newly arriving Afghans learn to drive and obtain a license. In Vermont, we all know that without a car, employment options shrink quickly. Today, Afghan allies live in more than a dozen towns—from St. Albans to Bennington and Rutland to Hartford—well beyond traditional resettlement hubs like Burlington.
In 2023, I joined the Alliance as an “interim” executive director to help grow and professionalize the organization. While I never worked in Afghanistan, I spent much of my twenties with the International Committee of the Red Cross, promoting U.S. compliance with the Geneva Conventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and at Guantánamo. My brother served in Iraq, and like so many of my generation, my adult life has been shaped by the so-called “Global War on Terror.”
I felt a deep responsibility to a community that had risked so much in support of U.S. missions abroad. I also felt a strong sense of Vermont’s hospitality—that if you welcome someone into your home, at a minimum you provide food, shelter, and safety. Finally, as someone long concerned about our demographics, the truth is simple: we are not going to birth our way out of our workforce crisis. The solution lies in welcoming people—and their talents—from across the country and the world.
Since 2023, the Alliance, together with community partners, has welcomed and served an estimated 650 Afghan allies statewide with employment, driving lessons, housing assistance, immigration legal services, civic education, health programming, and more. We’ve partnered with dozens of employers across northern Vermont eager to hire Afghan allies and willing to make small workplace adjustments. Through our driving program alone, more than 60 individuals have passed the Vermont road test. From manufacturing to healthcare, education to commercial truck driving, Afghan allies are filling high-demand jobs, strengthening our rural economy, and enriching our communities.
A recent USCRI policy report found that Afghan allies nationwide have contributed an estimated $1.79 billion in local, state, and federal taxes, including contributions to Medicare and Social Security. Contrary to harmful rhetoric, Afghan allies are not a “drain” on the system—their contributions far outweigh the short-term support provided during resettlement.
A damaging narrative suggesting Afghan allies are “unvetted” or pose a security risk to this country is circulating from Washington. In reality, those fleeing the Taliban are among the most thoroughly vetted individuals in this country—they were screened during employment with the U.S. government, during immigration processing, and again with every status adjustment.
Afghan allies are our neighbors, friends, and colleagues. At the Alliance, the majority of staff and board members are Afghan allies themselves—thoughtful, courageous, emerging leaders raised in an Afghanistan backed by the U.S. They understand, as deeply as we do, the hope and possibility that come with a free and democratic society. I’ve been inspired daily by what these young leaders have achieved for Vermont and the talents they’ve already contributed to our state.
I’ll soon step back from the Alliance to make space for new leadership and a new chapter for the organization. What began as an interim role became far more meaningful than I ever expected. As for what’s next, I hope to bring what I’ve learned back into state government, where I can have a broader impact as we continue to address our demographic crisis and the policies coming from Washington.
To the state and local leaders, community partners, and volunteers I’ve had the opportunity to work alongside over the last few years—thank you. I’m inspired and amazed by what we can accomplish when we pool our resources and talents around a common purpose. I’m excited for the Alliance’s next chapter and for all we can continue to achieve for our newest neighbors and Vermont.
BENNINGTON, Vt. (WCAX) – A Bennington man with a lengthy criminal history was sentenced on Monday on aggravated domestic assault charges.
Max Misch, the once self-described white nationalist who has made headlines before for hate crime and gun charges, will spend six months in jail with credit for time served and two years on probation for domestic assault.
He pleaded guilty to the charge last month after authorities said he admitted to hitting a woman he knew.
His conditions of probation include avoiding contact with his victim and not possessing any deadly weapons.
Copyright 2025 WCAX. All rights reserved.
Commentary: Drop the bomb or save humanity? ‘Pluribus’ and its misanthrope’s dilemma
‘The Middle’ Actor Pat Finn Dead at 60 After Cancer Battle
Families reeling, businesses suffering six months after ICE raided Ventura cannabis farms
Flu is hitting California early. Why doctors worry this year will be especially hard on kids
Kings searching for answers after sixth loss in seven games: ‘It’s a difficult time’
Florida High School Football Rankings: Top 25 teams – Oct. 21
Cleary's 21 help Le Moyne down Central Connecticut State 69-64 in OT
How old is Bo Nix? What to know about Oregon quarterback ahead of 2024 NFL Draft
99th annual Pony Swim held in Virginia
Video: ‘It Didn’t Have to Happen This Way:’ U.Va. Faculty Call for Review of Police Response to Protests
Libyan army chief killed in plane crash: What next?
U.S. and Ukraine reach consensus on key issues aimed at ending the war
A 3-D Look Inside Trump’s Revamped Oval Office
Trump admin sues Illinois Gov. Pritzker over laws shielding migrants from courthouse arrests
Europeans show solidarity with Denmark after Trump’s Greenland threat
-
Iowa1 week agoAddy Brown motivated to step up in Audi Crooks’ absence vs. UNI
-
Maine1 week agoElementary-aged student killed in school bus crash in southern Maine
-
Maryland1 week agoFrigid temperatures to start the week in Maryland
-
New Mexico1 week agoFamily clarifies why they believe missing New Mexico man is dead
-
South Dakota1 week agoNature: Snow in South Dakota
-
Detroit, MI1 week ago‘Love being a pedo’: Metro Detroit doctor, attorney, therapist accused in web of child porn chats
-
Health1 week ago‘Aggressive’ new flu variant sweeps globe as doctors warn of severe symptoms
-
Massachusetts1 week agoMIT professor Nuno F.G. Loureiro, a 47-year-old physicist and fusion scientist, shot and killed in his home in Brookline, Mass. | Fortune