Trump Tariffs: Declared Illegitimate by Courts, Supreme Court Now Involved

Have you got a question?

The tariffs imposed by the Trump administration under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) have been ruled illegitimate by both the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) and the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. The matter now heads to the Supreme Court, which is being called upon to resolve one of the most delicate cases of separation of powers in recent decades. The issue—complex both economically and legally—once again prompts reflection on the ability of politics to govern “within certain limits,” and whether those limits are beneficial or detrimental to democracy.

On one hand, as we’ll soon see, judicial intervention in political matters can serve as a safeguard for a country’s economic stability. On the other hand, restricting a government’s economic decisions risks distorting the democratic process—not necessarily by denying a leader the freedom to “do whatever they want,” but by denying citizens the chance to “experience” the consequences, good or bad, of elected officials’ decisions, and thereby judge their performance and decide whether to re-elect or reject them.

It’s also true that when governments intervene in complex economic sectors, the real danger is pushing people into poverty and making the state more vulnerable—potentially triggering economic and social reactions that lead to suffering or even death. Politics, after all, is about the ability to govern with absolute balance and responsibility.

The Legal Case

In May 2025, the CIT ruled that the IEEPA does not grant the president authority to impose tariffs, as taxation falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress. The court also noted the lack of a legal connection between the declared emergencies and the tariff measures enacted.

On August 29, 2025, the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, upheld the CIT’s decision but suspended the injunction until October 14, allowing the tariffs to remain temporarily in effect while the government prepares its appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Trump administration has requested an expedited procedure, aiming for a ruling by November, citing the economic and strategic importance of the measure.

Economic and Fiscal Consequences

The ruling could have massive economic repercussions. The U.S. Treasury may be required to refund up to half of the collected tariff revenues—amounting to tens of billions of dollars. For American households, the tariffs have translated into estimated annual cost increases of over $2,400, with price hikes of up to 40% on everyday goods like footwear and clothing.

If the Supreme Court confirms the tariffs’ illegitimacy, it could trigger a federal budget crisis and ignite a heated debate over the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches in fiscal matters.

Constitutional Implications

Beyond the economic impact, the case raises major constitutional questions:

If the Supreme Court sides with the lower courts, it would draw a clear boundary around presidential authority in fiscal and trade matters.

The case also serves as a test of the “major questions doctrine,” which holds that decisions with significant economic or political impact require explicit legislative authorization and cannot be enacted through mere presidential decrees.

Conversely, a ruling in favor of the government could pave the way for an expansion of executive powers, with serious implications for the separation of powers in the United States.

What’s Next

The Supreme Court is expected to decide within weeks whether to hear the case and on what timeline. Observers anticipate a ruling by the end of 2025, given the urgency and economic stakes involved.

In the meantime, the tariffs remain in effect, though their future is more uncertain than ever.

Once again, the classic doctrines of public law—often confined to academic circles—return to the forefront of public debate. How far can elected officials go? What are the limits of judicial intervention in political decision-making?

The answers to these questions often remain suspended in academic discourse and courtrooms, without us realizing how deeply they affect our daily lives. Liberal democracy, as we understand it today, is built on a system of checks and balances that protects both the system itself and its citizens “at all costs.” Yet the core principle of “pleasing everyone” often risks, in reality, “displeasing everyone.”