The Trump administration has formally asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene and uphold the president’s controversial tariffs, which were recently invalidated by a lower court. In a petition filed Wednesday, the Justice Department urged the high court to reverse a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that struck down the bulk of tariffs imposed on dozens of trading partners. The legal challenge centers on whether the president can lawfully use emergency powers to justify such sweeping trade measures, a question that has significant implications for executive authority in trade and foreign policy.
Last week, the Federal Circuit issued a 7-4 decision rejecting the administration’s argument that national security concerns justified the tariffs under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. This provision allows the president to adjust imports if they are deemed to threaten national security, but the court found the administration overstepped its authority by applying tariffs so broadly. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing the administration, argued in the petition that the lower court’s decision undermines a cornerstone of Trump’s economic and foreign policy agenda and could disrupt sensitive international negotiations. The administration has requested an expedited review, asking the Supreme Court to announce by next Wednesday whether it will take the case and schedule oral arguments for the first week of November.
The lawsuit was originally brought by a coalition of small businesses and Democratic-led states, who argued that the tariffs—which affected imports ranging from steel and aluminum to consumer goods—imposed undue financial burdens and disrupted supply chains. Notably, these plaintiffs have expressed willingness for the Supreme Court to take up the case on an accelerated timeline, signaling a desire for legal clarity on the limits of presidential trade powers. The tariffs will remain in effect pending the Supreme Court’s decision, maintaining economic uncertainty for businesses and international partners alike. This case represents one of the most significant legal tests of Trump’s trade policy, which has relied heavily on tariffs as a tool to pressure trading partners and promote domestic manufacturing.