WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on Wednesday regarding President Donald Trump’s use of tariffs, a legal challenge that could significantly impact his trade policies. Trump has described the hearing as "one of the most important in the History of the Country" in a recent social media post.

The case centers on Trump's application of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA), which he has used to impose tariffs on various countries, including Canada, Mexico, and China. Critics, including several states and businesses, argue that Trump's reliance on a national security statute to impose these tariffs exceeds presidential authority. They contend that the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate taxes and tariffs, not the president.

Jeffrey Schwab, an attorney with the Liberty Justice Center representing small businesses, stated, "Congress would not have intended to hand unrestricted powers to the president. IEEPA does not include the word 'tariff' or any of its synonyms." He further emphasized that the president's interpretation of IEEPA as a "blank cheque" for imposing tariffs is not valid.

In defense of his actions, Trump has argued that restricting his ability to use IEEPA for tariffs would place the U.S. at a disadvantage in global trade. He warned that such limitations could lead to the "ruination of our Nation" and claimed that foreign countries have long taken advantage of the U.S.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt expressed confidence in the administration's legal arguments, stating they are optimistic the court will "do the right thing."

The Supreme Court justices will examine the language of IEEPA, particularly its provisions regarding the president's authority to regulate imports. Tim Brightbill, a partner at Wiley Rein LLP and a law professor, noted that the court will also consider the major questions doctrine, which requires clear congressional authorization for significant economic or political issues, as well as the non-delegation doctrine, which prevents Congress from transferring its legislative powers to other branches of government.

If the court finds that IEEPA permits tariffs, it will also assess whether Trump's tariffs address the emergencies he cites. Trump has imposed tariffs on Canada, for instance, after declaring an emergency related to fentanyl trafficking. However, experts have challenged the notion that trade deficits constitute an emergency.

Despite a response from Canada to address Trump's concerns, the president increased tariffs on Canadian goods from 25% to 35% amid deteriorating trade negotiations. Tensions escalated further when Trump accused Canada of attempting to influence the Supreme Court ahead of the hearing.

The Supreme Court's ruling could take until June, but a decision is anticipated sooner. Regardless of the outcome, the ruling will not affect Trump's use of tariffs under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which are already impacting various Canadian industries.

Brightbill remarked, "There are clearly a variety of other tariff tools in the toolbox, and it seems quite clear to me that tariffs are a cornerstone of this administration’s economic policy." He added that the administration is likely prepared to pivot to alternative strategies if the court rules against the use of IEEPA for tariffs.