Washington: President Donald Trump confirmed he will not attend Wednesday’s Supreme Court arguments over the legality of his sweeping tariffs, despite earlier indications that he might. Trump said his absence was intended to avoid distracting from the case. “I just don't want to do anything to deflect the importance of that decision,” he told reporters on Sunday.
However, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent will attend the hearing, describing his role as seeking “a ringside seat” and emphasizing that the tariffs represent an economic emergency. When asked if his presence could be construed as intimidation, Bessent told Fox News he would focus on the economic stakes rather than politics.
The tariffs under scrutiny were imposed by Trump using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law originally intended to address national emergencies, such as freezing enemy assets or imposing sanctions. Trump invoked the statute in response to what he described as a $1.2 trillion U.S. goods trade deficit in 2024 and a national crisis stemming from overdoses of the deadly painkiller fentanyl.
Trump’s tariffs fall into three categories:
• Reciprocal tariffs aimed at reducing trade deficits, ranging from 10% to 50% on imports from most trading partners, generating $51.6 billion as of September 23.
• Punitive tariffs on countries for non-trade political reasons.
• Fentanyl-related tariffs targeting countries involved in illegal trafficking of the opioid.
A tariff, essentially a tax on imported goods, is collected by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection and is often passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. While the legal challenge proceeds, Trump’s tariffs remain in effect.
The case presents not only a test of U.S. trade policy but also the scope of presidential power. Challengers argue that the Constitution grants Congress, not the president, authority to impose tariffs, and that the IEEPA was never intended to allow such sweeping economic action. Lower courts have sided with the challengers, with the Federal Circuit stating the administration’s approach violated the Supreme Court’s “major questions” doctrine, which requires clear Congressional authorization for executive actions with vast economic impact.
The litigation consolidates three separate lawsuits:
• A family-owned toy company, Learning Resources
• Small businesses represented by the Liberty Justice Center, including wine distributor V.O.S. Selections
• Twelve U.S. states, including Arizona, New York, and Oregon
The Supreme Court, comprising nine justices with a 6-3 conservative majority, will hear arguments from three advocates: U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer representing the Trump administration, Neal Katyal representing small businesses challenging the tariffs, and Benjamin Gutman representing the suing states. The Court, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, often delivers rulings months after oral arguments, though this case could see an expedited decision given its economic implications.
Oral arguments involve lawyers presenting their cases and responding to justices’ questions. The Justice Department has argued that rejecting the tariffs would leave the U.S. vulnerable to trade retaliation and economic instability. The Trump administration has warned that a loss could require unwinding trade deals, potentially causing severe economic disruption.
While Trump himself will not be present, Treasury Secretary Bessent said the administration expects the Court to uphold the tariffs. Should the ruling go against them, alternative statutory avenues remain, such as Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, allowing temporary 15% tariffs, and Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, which permits up to 50% tariffs on countries discriminating against U.S. commerce. “You should assume that they're here to stay,” Bessent told Reuters.
Trump’s tariffs have already prompted major trading partners, including Japan, the EU, Vietnam, Malaysia, Thailand, Cambodia, and South Korea, to negotiate concessions and framework deals, many of which remain in effect regardless of the Court’s ruling.
Outside the Supreme Court, the impact on small businesses is tangible. At a rally organized by Democratic lawmakers, Dahlia Rizk, founder of Massachusetts-based Buckle Me Coats, recounted paying $93,000 in tariffs this year after planning for only $30,000. “I took out loans, took on extra jobs, and I'm still struggling,” she said, highlighting the human cost of trade policy decisions.
Protesters in costumes inspired by The Handmaid’s Tale marched near the court, underscoring the political and societal attention focused on this landmark case. Meanwhile, Washington itself was quiet, with federal workers sparse amid an ongoing government shutdown, and the Supreme Court building partially obscured by scaffolding.
While framed as a trade dispute, the case is a defining test of executive authority. Trump is the first president to use IEEPA to impose tariffs, and a Supreme Court decision against him could set new boundaries on presidential power. Conversely, a ruling in favor could further expand executive authority over economic policy, influencing the U.S. trade landscape for years to come.
The hearing promises to clarify not just the legality of Trump’s tariffs but the limits of presidential authority, the role of Congress, and the direction of U.S. trade policy in an era of global economic interdependence.