The Trump administration has formally requested the Supreme Court to fast-track its review of a recent federal appellate court decision that limits the president’s authority to impose tariffs. The move comes amid concerns over potential economic repercussions, including the possible need to refund billions of dollars in tariffs paid by American businesses.
In a Wednesday filing, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent emphasized that approximately $750 billion to $1 trillion in tariff revenue is at stake if the case proceeds through the standard legal timeline, which concludes in June 2026. Bessent warned that a ruling against the administration could force the government to reimburse import taxes paid by U.S. companies, posing a significant financial risk.
The case centers on a legal challenge to President Trump’s use of emergency powers to implement broad tariffs starting in February 2018. These tariffs, which range from 10% to 50% on most imported goods, were initially justified by Trump under national emergencies declared over issues such as illegal fentanyl trafficking and trade deficits. As of June 30, the government had collected nearly $82 billion in tariff revenue.
Several private companies and a dozen states, led by Democratic attorneys general, have challenged the legality of these tariffs. Among the plaintiffs is V.O.S. Selections, a New York-based importer of wine and spirits from 16 countries. Other plaintiffs include a plastics manufacturer from Utah, a children’s electricity learning kit maker from Virginia, a fishing gear company from Pennsylvania, and a women’s cycling apparel business from Vermont.
The legal dispute hinges on the authority granted by the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA). The U.S. Court of International Trade previously upheld Trump’s tariffs, but a federal appellate court recently ruled that the president lacked such authority. The Trump administration has appealed this decision, which is currently stayed pending the outcome of the appeal.
In her motion to expedite the case, Bessent argued that the ruling hampers the administration’s ability to negotiate trade agreements with several key partners, including Japan, Indonesia, the UK, the Philippines, Vietnam, South Korea, and the European Union. The administration claims that the legal setback diminishes its leverage in securing favorable trade deals and investments, which, according to officials, could undermine U.S. economic interests.
Solicitor General John Sauer, representing the government before the Supreme Court, stated that the tariffs are a crucial part of President Trump’s economic and foreign policy strategy. He argued that these measures are vital to addressing persistent trade deficits and combating the flow of fentanyl across U.S. borders. Sauer, a former personal attorney for Trump, emphasized the importance of the case for national security and economic stability.
The legal battle over tariffs continues to highlight the broader debate over executive authority in trade policy, with implications that could shape the future of U.S. trade enforcement and international negotiations.