On September 3, 2025, the Trump administration filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States. SCOTUS shall rule on the president’s authority to impose tariffs under a 1977 law giving him certain emergency powers.
The request came five days after a federal appeals court in Washington ruled that the majority of the Trump administration’s tariffs are illegal. The court concluded that “IEEPA’s grant of presidential authority to ‘regulate’ imports does not authorize the tariffs imposed by the Executive Orders.” The Federal Circuit stayed its ruling until October 14 so as to allow the government to seek Supreme Court review.
In imposing the tariffs, Trump relied on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a 1977 law that allows the president to take action “to deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States,” if he declares a national emergency “with respect to such threat.” In particular, section 1702 of IEEPA provides that, when there is a national emergency, the president may “regulate … importation or exportation” of “property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest.”
Actually, the proceedings related to the petition to SCOTUS are the following: V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. United States, No. 25-cv-66(May 28, 2025) and Oregon v. United States Department of Homeland Security, No. 25-cv-77 (May 28, 2025), in front of the United States Court of International Trade; and V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, No. 25-1812 (Aug.29, 2025) and Oregon v. Trump, No. 25-1813 (Aug. 29, 2025), in front of United States Court of Appeals (Fed. Cir.).
On May 28, the Court of International Trade issued a single decision holding that both the trafficking tariffs and the reciprocal tariffs exceeded Trump’s power under IEEPA. The Trump administration went to the Federal Circuit, which hears appeals from the CIT. The full Federal Circuit heard oral arguments on July 31 and, by a vote of 7-4, supported the CIT’s ruling on Aug. 29.
Two categories of tariffs are at the center of the case. One set of tariffs, known as the “trafficking tariffs,” targets products from Canada, Mexico, and China – which, according to what the President says, have not done enough to stop the flow of fentanyl into the United States. The second set of tariffs, known as the “reciprocal tariffs,” applies more broadly to impose a minimum tariff of 10% (but up to 50%) on goods from almost all countries.
The Supreme Court is already asked slated to consider a separate challenge to Trump’s tariff authority at its September 29 conference. On May 29, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., barred the Trump administration from enforcing the tariffs against two family-owned toy companies. The toy companies have asked the Supreme Court to review that decision without waiting for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to rule on the government’s appeal – a procedure known as “cert before judgment.”