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.”
Score: UAlbany 4, Vermont 14
Location: Virtue Field | Burlington, Vt.
Records: UAlbany (10-5, 5-1 America East) | Vermont (8-6, 4-1 America East)
Short Story: UAlbany women’s lacrosse fell to the Vermont Catamounts on Saturday afternoon.
Key Stats
- Grace Cincebox recorded a total of 14 saves with 13 goals allowed for a .565 save percentage.
- Ravan Marsell led the Great Danes with two points on one goal and one assist.
- Four different UAlbany players scored in the contest.
- Reggie Williams was the team’s leader with three ground balls.
- Delilah Mile caused a team high three turnovers.
How It Happened
- The Catamounts came out of the gates hard and heavy, scoring all three goals between both sides in the first quarter.
- Vermont would take an 8-0 lead in the second quarter before Amanda Williamson found the back of the net on a women-down goal to put the Great Danes on the board and make it 8-1.
- The Great Danes would allow one more goal in the first half to trail 9-1 after 30-minutes of play.
- Grace Cincebox would enter the half with 10 saves.
- Riley Forthofer started the Great Danes off in the second half to make it a 9-2 game, before Vermont put up three more goals to take a 12-2 lead entering the final quarter of play.
- Mya Carroll and Ravan Marsell both scored on back-to-back free-position goals to make it a 12-4 game.
- The Catamounts finished the game with two more goals to take the win 14-4.
Up Next
The Great Danes will next have a bye week and wait to see the outcome of next week’s Vermont vs UMass Lowell game to see who will host the America East Tournament.
Social Central: Stay up to date with UAlbany women’s lacrosse by following the team on Instagram (@UAlbanyWLax), Facebook (UAlbany Women’s Lacrosse), and X (@UAlbanyWLax) for all of the latest news and highlights throughout the year.
Is creativity the missing key to better health?
Research suggests creative activities like art, music and crafts may benefit mental health as much as other key health habits.
Here’s another reason Vermont is the best New England state: It’s home to one of the top 5 happiest cities in the United States.
Plus, it has another within the top 15.
Massachusetts, on the other hand, doesn’t even break the top 50. Nor, does Connecticut or Rhode Island.
The personal finance website analyzed 182 of the largest cities in the country, and ranked Boston 63rd overall. Although the city is home to some of the nation’s top universities, high-ranking hospitals, and well-regarded companies, it didn’t break the top 50.
To get the rankings, WalletHub compared the cities using 29 metrics, including life-satisfaction index, depression rate, poverty rate, job security, and acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. Each metric was graded on a 100-point scale, and cities were assigned an overall happiness score.
Here’s a look at how the cities ranked.
South Burlington is No. 4 happiest city, Burlington is No. 11
South Burlington came on top for Vermont in WalletHub’s list of the happiest cities in the United States, ranking at No. 4. In scored very high for emotional and physical well-being coming in at the No. 4 spot, which made up for coming in No. 48 for community and environment. It was No. 9 for income and employment ranking. That gave it a total happiness of score of 70.15
Burlington wasn’t far behind at all, taking the No. 11 spot on the list and a happiness score of 67.54. It’s highest score was for income and employment ranking where it came second. It ranked No. 13 for community and environment and No. 21 for emotional and physical well-being.
Happiest cities in the US, per WalletHub
Here are the 25 happiest cities in the U.S., and their happiness scores, according to WalletHub’s 2026 list:
- Fremont, California – 74.09
- Bismarck, North Dakota – 73.11
- Scottsdale, Arizona – 71.36
- South Burlington, Vermont – 70.15
- Fargo, North Dakota – 69.36
- Overland Park, Kansas – 68.45
- Charleston, South Carolina – 68.44
- Irvine, California – 67.99
- Gilbert, Arizona – 67.96
- San Jose, California – 67.79
- Burlington, Vermont – 67.54
- Madison, Wisconsin – 66.35
- Columbia, Maryland – 66.28
- Chandler, Arizona – 65.69
- Seattle, Washington – 65.62
- Plano, Texas – 65.34
- San Francisco, California – 64.99
- Lincoln, Nebraska – 64.90
- Portland, Maine – 64.59
- Tempe, Arizona – 64.30
- San Diego, California – 64.30
- Raleigh, North Carolina – 63.47
- Peoria, Arizona – 63.38
- Durham, North Carolina – 62.84
- Huntington Beach, California – 62.80
Least happy cities in the US, per WalletHub
Here are the 25 least happy cities in the U.S., and their happiness scores, according to WalletHub’s 2026 list:
- Detroit, Michigan (#182 overall) – 29.55
- Memphis, Tennessee (#181 overall) – 34.39
- Shreveport, Louisiana (#180 overall) – 34.93
- Cleveland, Ohio (#179 overall) – 36.50
- Huntington, West Virginia (#178 overall) – 37.20
- Toledo, Ohio (#177 overall) – 37.21
- Augusta, Georgia (#176 overall) – 38.24
- Fort Smith, Arkansas (#175 overall) – 38.66
- Dover, Delaware (#174 overall) – 39.08
- Akron, Ohio (#173 overall) – 40.11
- Baltimore, Maryland (#172 overall) – 40.28
- Birmingham, Alabama (#171 overall) – 40.37
- Baton Rouge, Louisiana (#170 overall) – 40.47
- Columbus, Georgia (#169 overall) – 40.61
- Montgomery, Alabama (#168 overall) – 41.35
- Gulfport, Mississippi (#167 overall) – 41.65
- Charleston, West Virginia (#166 overall) – 42.18
- Jackson, Mississippi (#165 overall) – 42.60
- St. Louis, Missouri (#164 overall) – 43.53
- Knoxville, Tennessee (#163 overall) – 44.04
- Wilmington, Delaware (#162 overall) – 44.34
- Little Rock, Arkansas (#161 overall) – 44.48
- Mobile, Alabama (#160 overall) – 44.85
- New Orleans, Louisiana (#159 overall) – 45.19
- Tulsa, Oklahoma (#158 overall) – 45.33
Where New England cities ranked
Here are the 12 happiest cities in New England, and their happiness scores, according to WalletHub’s 2026 list:
- South Burlington, Vermont (#6 overall) – 70.15
- Burlington, Vermont (#11 overall) – 67.54
- Portland, Maine (#19 overall) – 64.59
- Nashua, New Hampshire (#27 overall) – 62.49
- Manchester, New Hampshire (#51 overall) – 59.10
- Boston, Massachusetts (#63 overall) – 56.88
- Warwick, Rhode Island (#66 overall) – 56.59
- New Haven, Connecticut (#95 overall) – 54.14
- Bridgeport, Connecticut (#96 overall) – 54.01
- Providence, Rhode Island (#98 overall) – 53.52
- Worcester, Massachusetts (#116 overall) – 50.12
- Lewiston, Maine (#145 overall) – 47.28
A tornado touched down in Vermont Thursday, when a strong storm system moved through the area, the National Weather Service said.
Winds are believed to have hit 90 mph when the tornado churned through Williamstown at about 9:15 p.m., the agency said Friday. That makes it an EF1 tornado on the Fujita Scale, which goes from 0 at the weakest to 5 at the strongest.
Lasting three minutes, the twister traveled for more than four-tenths of a mile, with a maximum width of 100 yards, according to the National Weather Service’s preliminary assessment. It damaged a pair of buildings and numerous trees, shearing tree tops. Golf ball-sized hail was also reported in the area.
Severe thunderstorms popped up across the North Country Thursday night, including in central Vermont — Williamstown is south of Montpelier.
The town thanked its road crew, firefighters and locals who spent hours in the wake of the storm cleaning up.
“We appreciate all that you do to keep the town functioning though an emergency situation,” the town said.
People in the area told NBC affiliate WPTZ that the storm was shockingly powerful, and National Weather Service staffer Marlon Verasamy said that while tornadoes in Vermont are rare, they’re even rarer in this part of the state.
“Generally, when we do see tornadoes around the area that they’ve been in Addison County and not here, so it make it really, really unique to get a tornado in this kind of terrain in this part of the state,” Verasamy said.
-
Delaware5 minutes agoState Police Arrest Dover Man for Assault and Aggravated Menacing in Dover – Delaware State Police – State of Delaware
-
Florida11 minutes agoSNAP benefits will be changing in Florida starting Monday
-
Georgia17 minutes agoGeorgia on nobody’s mind: The Dawgs are under the radar, and that’s a compliment
-
Hawaii23 minutes agoLarge section of Aloha Stadium demolished as project proceeds – West Hawaii Today
-
Idaho29 minutes ago
Idaho Lottery results: See winning numbers for Powerball, Pick 3 on April 18, 2026
-
Illinois35 minutes ago5 tornadoes confirmed in Illinois from Friday’s storms
-
Indiana41 minutes agoAn Indiana district turned to voters to fund more preschool seats. Here’s what happened next.
-
Iowa47 minutes agoVote: Who Should be Iowa’s High School Athlete of the Week? (4/19/2026)