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. 

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.”

‘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.”

Former President Barack Obama on Saturday slammed Republicans for the ongoing federal government shutdown.

“The government is shut down and the Republicans who currently are in charge of Congress, they’re not even pretending to solve the problem,” the 64-year-old told a rally crowd while campaigning for former Rep. Abigail Spanberger, D-Va., turned Democratic gubernatorial candidate in Norfolk, Virginia. “They have not even been showing up to work, not in session. Where are you? What are you doing?”

The government shutdown began a month ago on Oct. 1, after lawmakers failed to pass a spending bill to fund the government, with Democrats concerned expiring Affordable Care Act tax cuts could raise premiums and that Medicaid cuts could leave people without coverage.

Republicans have blamed the shutdown on Democrats, with Trump recently calling them “crazed lunatics.”

JOHNSON WARNS US ‘BARRELING TOWARD ONE OF THE LONGEST SHUTDOWNS’ IN HISTORY

“The shutdown proceeds because the Democrats just don’t know what they’re doing,” President Donald Trump told reporters this week. I don’t know what’s wrong with them. They’ve never done a thing like this. They’ve become crazed lunatics. All they have to do is say, ‘Let’s go, let’s go. Let’s open up our country.’ And everything snaps back into shape. So there’s something wrong with them.”

Trump has also suggested getting rid of the filibuster.

“Remember, Republicans, regardless of the Schumer Shutdown, the Democrats will terminate the Filibuster the first chance they get,” he wrote on Truth Socila on Saturday. “They will Pack the Supreme Court, pick up two States, and add at least 8 Electoral Votes. Their two objectors are gone!!! Don’t be WEAK AND STUPID. FIGHT,FIGHT, FIGHT! WIN, WIN, WIN! We will immediately END the Extortionist Shutdown, get ALL of our agenda passed, and make life so good for Americans that these DERANGED DEMOCRAT politicians will never again have the chance to DESTROY AMERICA!”

He added, “Republicans, you will rue the day that you didn’t TERMINATE THE FILIBUSTER!!! BE TOUGH, BE SMART, AND WIN!!! This is much bigger than the Shutdown, this is the survival of our Country!”

Obama didn’t mention Democrats’ part in the shutdown when talking about it on Saturday. He did, however, have choice words for Trump and his administration.

“Our country and our politics are in a pretty dark place right now. It’s hard to know where to start, because every day this white House offers up a fresh batch of lawlessness and recklessness and mean-spiritedness and just plain craziness,” he charged.

SHUTDOWN IGNITES STRATEGIST DEBATE: WILL TRUMP AND GOP PAY THE POLITICAL PRICE IN 2026?

Democratic gubernatorial candidate Abigail Spanberger joins former President Barack Obama, during a campaign event Saturday, in Norfolk. (AP Photo/Steve Helber)

The former president joked: “It’s like every day is Halloween. Except it’s all tricks and no treats. And and here’s the thing, it’s not as if we didn’t see some of this coming. I will admit, it’s worse than even I expected. But I did warn y’all.”

He claimed that while the economy has been good for Trump’s “billionaire pals,” costs haven’t gotten any better for average people.

Obama said “there is absolutely no evidence Republican policies have made life better for you” while claiming that Republicans are more focused on “scapegoat[ing] minorities and DEI for every problem under the sun. You got a flat tire? DEI. Wife mad at you? DEI.”

Former President Barack Obama with New Jersey gubernatorial candidate Mikie Sherill, Saturday, in Newark, New Jersey. (Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)

“What they have not devoted energy to is helping you,” he told the crowd. “They have not put forward serious proposals to lower housing costs or make groceries more affordable.”

He urged the crowd to vote for Spanberger, who is facing Virginia’s Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears for an open seat in the state.

Later Saturday, Obama headed to New Jersey for a rally with Democratic gubernatorial candidate Rep. Mikie Sherrill, who is in a close race against Republican Jack Ciattarelli.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“I don’t know many people who started their careers as a Navy helicopter pilot, then went to law school, then became a federal prosecutor, keeping communities safe,” Obama said in front of a crowd in Newark. “And she’s doing this while raising four kids. And then, because apparently that was a little bit too easy, she decided to run for Congress. I get tired just thinking about it. But I do know that it makes her the kind of leader who understands the mission, who knows who she is supposed to serve, who doesn’t have a lot of time for excuses. And that is exactly what New Jersey needs right now.”

Zohran Mamdani triumphed in the New York mayoral election on Tuesday, having expanded the coalition that carried him to victory in the Democratic primary in June.

Mr. Mamdani handily defeated former Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, who lost in the primary before running as an independent, and Curtis Sliwa, the Republican candidate. By Wednesday morning, with an estimated 91 percent of the vote tallied, Mr. Mamdani had secured 50.4 percent of the vote, a nearly nine-point margin over Mr. Cuomo, his nearest rival.

Mr. Mamdani had a strong showing across the city among most racial and ethnic groups and most income levels.

In mostly Black precincts, voters backed him decisively — a major shift from the primary,when those areas supported Mr. Cuomo — and he expanded his lead in areas with mostly Hispanic residents. He also captured a majority of the vote in low- and middle-income areas.

Mr. Mamdani’s strongest performance was with younger voters. He carried precincts where the median registered voter’s age was 45 or younger, beating Mr. Cuomo by 30 percentage points. That mirrored his dominance among young voters in the primary.

To win as an independent, Mr. Cuomo would have had to maintain the coalitions he assembled when he ran in the primary and also secure the votes of many Republicans.

His effort to win over Republicans was bolstered by a late endorsement by President Trump, but it was not enough for Mr. Cuomo to make up the difference.

In the end, Mr. Cuomo ended up with a more than 40-point margin in precincts that Mr. Trump carried in the 2024 presidential election.

Some of the areas where Mr. Mamdani performed best were in Brooklyn. More than four out of five votes in Bushwick, Clinton Hill, Prospect Heights and East Williamsburg went to Mr. Mamdani.

Meanwhile, Mr. Cuomo’s bases of support were primarily on Staten Island, as well as in parts of Queens and in ultra-Orthodox Jewish neighborhoods of Brooklyn.

Each candidate’s top 10 neighborhoods by vote share

Advertisement

Advertisement

Zohran Mamdani

Neighborhood	PCT.	Votes
Clinton Hill Brooklyn	%82.5%	9,377
Prospect Heights Brooklyn	82.3	8,326
Bushwick Brooklyn	82.2	24,000
East Williamsburg Brooklyn	81.7	4,109
Greenwood Heights Brooklyn	81.1	2,311
South Slope Brooklyn	79.6	2,218
Ditmas Park Brooklyn	79.0	4,252
Fort Greene Brooklyn	78.1	9,471
Gowanus Brooklyn	77.4	4,371
Bedford-Stuyvesant Brooklyn	77.0	36,963

Andrew Cuomo

Neighborhood	PCT.	Votes
Manhattan Beach Brooklyn	%87.5%	1,311
Borough Park Brooklyn	86.3	21,758
Midwood Brooklyn	76.3	23,495
Sheepshead Bay Brooklyn	70.2	19,718
Kew Gardens Hills Queens	69.8	7,069
Mill Basin Brooklyn	69.5	2,855
Willowbrook Staten Island	69.2	1,592
Todt Hill Staten Island	68.5	1,480
Coney Island Brooklyn	66.8	6,459
Hollis Hills Queens	66.7	1,618

Curtis Sliwa

Neighborhood	PCT.	Votes
Broad Channel Queens	%35.7%	372
Breezy Point Queens	34.2	872
Tottenville Staten Island	31.6	1,692
Gerritsen Beach Brooklyn	29.9	883
Howard Beach Queens	28.1	2,503
Eltingville Staten Island	28.1	2,513
Country Club Bronx	28.1	482
Pleasant Plains Staten Island	27.3	491
New Dorp Beach Staten Island	26.5	385
Rockaway Park Queens	26.5	567

Note: Votes are each candidate’s total votes in that neighborhood.