The Supreme Court is seen in the distance in Washington, D.C. on Feb. 20, 2025. File photo by J. Scott Applewhite/AP
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
Advertisement
byHabib Sabet
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.
Advertisement
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.”
Advertisement
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.”
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.
Advertisement
“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.
Advertisement
“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.
Advertisement
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.
Advertisement
“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.”
Advertisement
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.”
SHELBURNE — Norman Rockwell lived for a time in suburban New York City and died and was buried in the Berkshires of Massachusetts. But for 14 years in between, the artist spent perhaps the most prolific period of his career in Vermont creating his best-known works.
That’s how Shelburne Museum curator Carolyn Bauer sees it — and how the museum’s latest exhibition treats the artist.
“Norman Rockwell: At Home in Vermont,” which opens June 20 and runs through Oct. 25, displays 40 of the 175 covers Rockwell famously created for The Saturday Evening Post magazine during his time in Vermont between 1939 and 1953.
Free Vermont newsletter: Want to know how we do stories? Sign up for our new, free weekly newsletter and hear straight from us.
Advertisement
Also on display are prints of “The Four Freedoms,” maybe his most famed works of all, which represent American ideals spelled out by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1941. Paintings in the exhibition include “The Young Lady with the Shiner” and “The Tattoo Artist,” both whimsical, recognizable pieces used as covers for The Saturday Evening Post.
“It’s very accessible work and approachable,” Bauer said.
The display features the three paintings that inspired the exhibition, given to the Shelburne Museum by Rock of Ages, the Barre granite quarry and monument maker. Those Rockwell paintings filled a significant gap in the museum’s art collection, which includes works by Claude Monet, Edgar Degas, Grandma Moses and Andrew Wyeth but, until recently, none by Rockwell, perhaps the best-known artist to have lived here.
“It feels like a homecoming in many regards,” Bauer said.
Advertisement
Moving to southern VT, finding ‘the every American’
The exhibition frames Rockwell’s time in Vermont around the tenor of the times in America. As the Great Depression was ending, World War II was looming and the nation was growing more urban and industrialized, much of the public was yearning for greater simplicity, Bauer said.
Rockwell was among them, leaving New Rochelle north of New York City for the quietude of Arlington in southern Vermont.
He was not alone. Contemporary artists including Mead Schaeffer, John Atherton and Gene Pelham would settle in Arlington too, creating what Bauer termed “the golden illustrator days” in Vermont.
Rockwell’s art, as the 152-page hardcover catalogue accompanying the exhibition notes, shows “how Vermont itself came to embody American ideals in the national imagination.”
Rockwell and his fellow Arlington artists used each other as models in their creations. “They really would work collaboratively,” Bauer said.
Advertisement
Pelham’s daughter, Melinda, is shown in the exhibition in two works: “The Babysitter,” a painting of a girl holding a crying baby that’s on loan from The Fleming Museum at the University of Vermont and an admission submission Rockwell sent to Kellogg’s of a girl clutching a cereal-laden spoon to her mouth.
Doctors, mail deliverers and shopkeepers from Arlington populated his work. Bauer said Rockwell usually gave models $5 and a can of Coca-Cola.
“He was recycling and using just about everybody in town,” Bauer said. That included himself: Rockwell added his own visage to the multiple faces in “The Gossip,” which shows him lashing out at a woman who’s started the rumor-mongering.
Bauer said Rockwell wanted to cultivate a sense of place by using Vermonters known for their austere self-reliance at the forefront of his work. He also found “the every American” ideal in town, Bauer said, though his art reflected a pronounced lack of diversity.
In later work, Rockwell would confront race and segregation as the Civil Rights Movement swept the U.S.
Advertisement
“He was progressive,” Bauer said.
Inspired by paintings donated by Rock of Ages
“Norman Rockwell: At Home in Vermont” was inspired by the 2025 museum acquisition of a trio of Rockwell works that once hung in the Barre offices of Rock of Ages. The granite company contacted the museum asking if it could donate the paintings, Bauer said, prompting staffers to wonder momentarily, “Is this real?”
Rockwell created advertisements for Rock of Ages and gave the paintings upon which the ads were based to the company. “Kneeling Girl” from 1955, making its debut at the Shelburne Museum, takes place in front of a gravestone engraved with the name Newton.
Rock of Ages donated two versions of 1963 work “The Craftsman,” a muted draft and a more luminous final version that were first displayed at the museum last year. They depict Rock of Ages stonecutter George Seivwright working in the shadow of a memorial bearing the name “Norwell,” a portmanteau of Rockwell’s first and last names.
Advertisement
Bauer called the paintings “incredible works of art that were circulated widely” in ads, brochures and pamphlets touting Rock of Ages and its world-famous Vermont granite. Though Rockwell had left Vermont for Massachusetts by the time he created those paintings, they do what Rockwell had done when he lived in Arlington — show the nation and the world what Vermont and Vermonters are capable of.
“We are just eager for our visitors to see these paintings,” Bauer said.
If you go
WHAT: “Norman Rockwell: At Home in Vermont”
WHEN: June 20 through Oct. 25
Advertisement
WHERE: Pizzagalli Center for Art and Education, Shelburne Museum
INFORMATION: $8-$25 museum admission; free under age 5 and for active military and Shelburne Museum members. shelburnemuseum.org
Contact Brent Hallenbeck at bhallenbeck@burlingtonfreepress.com.
The National Weather Service is investigating whether a small tornado touched down in Woodstock in eastern Vermont on Thursday afternoon as intense storms swept through the area, uprooting and snapping trees, and causing structural damage.
A damage survey team is expected to assess the damage on Friday morning to confirm whether any tornadoes touched down during the severe thunderstorms, the Weather Service in Burlington, Vt., said.
The suspected tornado occurred some time between 2 p.m. and 3 p.m., according to the NWS. A tight vortex, a marker for rotation, was spotted on radar, although there was no debris signature detected on radar. No tornado warnings were issued at the time.
If a tornado is confirmed to have touched down, the survey team will also determine the size, path, and intensity of the twister.
Advertisement
Some of the damage left behind by what is believed to have been a tornado that touched down Thursday.Chris Markos
The last tornado to touch down in Vermont was just a couple of months ago. On April 16, 2026, an EF1 touched down in Williamstown, Vt., according to the NWS. An EF1 tornado is the second-lowest rating for twisters, according to the Enhanced Fujita Scale, which ranks them based on intensity.
Several supercells had tracked across northern New York into southern and central Vermont, producing large hail and damaging winds, and eventually spawning the tornado, which the Weather Service said was about a half-mile long and 200 yards wide at its peak. The damage survey team also found ”extensive wind damage between Ainsworth State Park and Jackson Center with estimated winds between 70 and 80 mph,“ which was caused by an accompanying microburst, the NWS said.
Large trees are seen uprooted near Staples Pond in Williamstown, Vt., in April.NWS
More than an hour after the Vermont storm, two tornado warnings were issued for southern Worcester County after a pair of tight vortexes were spotted on radar, indicating a possible tornado.
No structural or other damages were found, but storm spotters have submitted reports of a funnel cloud near the Spencer-Leicester town line.
Ken Mahan can be reached at ken.mahan@globe.com. Follow him on Instagram @kenmahantheweatherman. Marianne Mizera can be reached at marianne.mizera@globe.com. Follow her @MareMizera.
It’s been nearly a year and a half since border agent David ‘Chris’ Maland was shot and killed during a traffic stop near the interstate in Coventry, Vermont. Now, a group of law enforcement officers are petitioning to dedicate a section of I-91 to him.
 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.
