The Supreme Court's Silence: The Power Struggle Behind the Pending Global Tariff Case Against Trump

Year, Month, Day, Washington. In front of the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court, reporters, lawyers, and lobbyists waited in the cold winter wind. The clock struck the usual time for releasing decisions, and three rulings were announced, but the highly anticipated judgment—on whether the global tariffs imposed by former President and current President Donald Trump under the National Emergency Act were legal—did not appear. The court offered no explanation and gave no date for the next ruling. This deliberate silence was like a boulder dropped into the pond of the global economy, sending ripples from the trading floors of Wall Street all the way to government offices in Beijing, Berlin, and Taipei. This was not merely the postponement of a legal case but a profound struggle over the checks and balances of the U.S. Constitution, the boundaries of presidential authority, and the future direction of globalization.

A constitutional crisis triggered by a "Liberation Day".

On [Year Month Day], President Trump, who had just begun his second term, announced a global tariff plan he referred to as "Liberation Day." The plan establishes a base tariff of % on imported goods and imposes "reciprocal" tariffs as high as % on numerous trading partners, covering nearly all of the United States' major economies. The legal basis cited by the Trump administration is the *International Emergency Economic Powers Act* passed in [Year]. This law authorizes the President, during a national emergency, to "investigate, regulate, or prohibit" any economic transactions involving foreign interests, including "imports."

Trump is not using this for the first time. As early as May 2019, he imposed tariffs of 25% or 30% on Mexico, Canada, and China on this basis, citing the need to prevent the smuggling of drugs such as fentanyl into the United States and declaring it a "national emergency." However, the scale and universality of the "Liberation Day" tariffs have elevated such unilateral actions to an unprecedented level. According to U.S. government data, from July 6, 2018, to August 31, 2020, these tariffs generated over $80 billion in fiscal revenue, involving more than 520,000 importers and approximately 2.6 million shipments of goods.

The issue is that the word "tariff" never appears in the IEEPA Act. The text of the Act authorizes the President to "regulate imports," but does this equate to the "power to lay and collect taxes," a power exclusively vested in Congress? This is precisely the core of the lawsuit. Over a thousand businesses, including Costco and Goodyear Tire, along with 12 states primarily governed by Democrats, have jointly sued the government. They accuse the Trump administration of abusing emergency powers, twisting a law designed to address specific, urgent threats into a universal tool for implementing broad trade policies, effectively usurping the taxing power granted to Congress by Article I of the Constitution.

The lower court rulings have consistently been unfavorable to the government. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade unanimously ruled that Trump did not have the authority to impose such tariffs under the emergency law. The judges held that the President, as Commander-in-Chief, does not possess "unbounded power" to impose tariffs under this emergency statute. The government subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court, making this case a critical test of the limits of presidential power and the judicial leanings of the Supreme Court.

The Mind Maze of Nine Justices: Gauging the Verdict Trend from Oral Arguments

On [Year Month Day], the Supreme Court held oral arguments for this case. From the questions posed by the justices at the time, the public gained insight into the intense deliberations within this legal sanctuary. Analysis reveals that both conservative and liberal justices expressed significant skepticism toward the government's legal arguments.

Chief Justice John Roberts' questioning went straight to the constitutional heart of the matter. He pointed out, "Taxing the American people has always been a core power of Congress." This statement highlights the essence of the case: it is a tug-of-war between executive and legislative authority. Known for upholding institutional stability and constitutional balance, Roberts demonstrated in the "Department of Commerce v. New York" case that he does not always defer to executive power, having blocked the Trump administration from adding a citizenship question to the census.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, from the perspective of legal textualism, raised pointed questions. She asked the government lawyer to provide historical or statutory precedents demonstrating that the phrase "regulate commerce" has ever been interpreted to allow the imposition of tariffs. Her questions suggested that a strict reading of the legal text might not support the government’s position. In previous rulings, such as the case overturning the Biden administration’s vaccine mandate, Barrett has made clear that major policy decisions require explicit authorization from Congress.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh's questioning also focused on statutory authority. He inquired why tariffs should be considered import controls under the law when the statute itself does not explicitly mention tariffs. Although Kavanaugh generally supports the President's authority in foreign policy, he acknowledged that the President is not immune to congressional oversight.

The stance of the liberal justices is even more distinct. Justice Sonia Sotomayor has long been critical of unchecked executive power. Her sharp dissent in the "Trump v. Hawaii" case regarding the travel ban indicates that she is unlikely to readily accept broad claims made in the name of "national security."

It is noteworthy that a legal concept repeatedly emerged in this debate—the "major questions doctrine." This principle holds that for administrative actions of "vast economic and political significance," courts may require agencies to obtain explicit authorization from Congress, rather than relying on vague or general statutory language. The plaintiffs strongly argued that Trump's use of tariffs to influence trillions of dollars in trade precisely represented the type of scenario where the "major questions doctrine" should apply. In the 2022 case of West Virginia v. EPA, the Supreme Court's majority opinion formally invoked this principle for the first time, striking down the EPA's carbon emissions plan. In her vigorous dissent at the time, liberal Justice Elena Kagan criticized the doctrine as a "get-out-of-text-free card" for the majority justices.

Following the oral arguments, traders on market prediction platforms quickly adjusted their expectations. The probability of a favorable ruling for Trump plummeted from its pre-argument level to below %. This market sentiment reflects a widespread consensus that the majority of Supreme Court justices may lean toward limiting the president’s authority in this matter.

The Cost of Unresolved Issues: The Global Economy and Markets Fluctuate Amid Uncertainty

The Supreme Court's delayed ruling has itself become an event with economic impact. The moment the judgment was absent, the market immediately reacted.

The stock market exhibited divergent fluctuations. Shares of consumer goods companies such as Lululemon and Mattel declined in response, as ongoing tariff uncertainties threaten their supply chains and costs. Earlier gains by Stanley Black & Decker were completely erased. Meanwhile, Bitcoin's price surged over $1,000 within minutes, approaching the $70,000 mark. The rise of this "digital gold" cryptocurrency clearly reveals market anxieties about the stability of the traditional fiat currency system and the global trade framework. Investors are flocking to Bitcoin, viewing it as a safe haven to hedge against political and policy risks.

The global diplomatic stage is also adjusting its pace in sync. Taiwan's negotiators flew to the United States on the eve of the ruling date to conduct the sixth round of face-to-face consultations, aiming to reduce U.S. tariffs on its exports from % to %. The Taiwan side indicated that both parties are expected to issue a statement on the "consensus" already reached. This timing coincidence is by no means accidental; it suggests that trading partners are leveraging the window period of legal procedures to intensify bilateral negotiations, with the goal of securing more favorable conditions before the final ruling is issued.

A broader strategic adjustment is also underway. On the very same day the Supreme Court remained silent, the Trump administration announced a suspension of new tariffs on critical minerals, opting instead to pursue bilateral agreements with foreign nations to secure supply chains. Simultaneously, however, citing national security concerns, it imposed a % tariff on specific AI chips, such as those from Nvidia. This combination of restraint and assertiveness reveals the complexity and opportunistic nature of Trump’s trade strategy: stepping back temporarily in areas with high legal risks while advancing in domains like "national security," where he perceives a stronger legal foundation.

China's response appears more composed. Despite facing tariff pressures from Trump, China still recorded a record trillion-dollar trade surplus for the year. This resilience has prompted global companies to accelerate supply chain diversification, shifting toward markets in Southeast Asia, Africa, and Latin America. At the same time, China is experiencing a wave of diplomatic activity: leaders from South Korea, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Germany have either visited or plan to visit Beijing. This creates an interesting contrast: while Washington is mired in policy gridlock due to internal constitutional disputes, Beijing is becoming a new focal point for countries seeking economic stability and cooperation.

For American businesses, this uncertainty represents a tangible cost. If the Supreme Court ultimately rules the tariffs illegal, over a billion dollars in already paid tariffs could face refund claims. U.S. Customs and Border Protection would be mired in the complex quagmire of refund procedures, while the Treasury Department would confront a massive funding shortfall. As Trump himself issued a fierce warning on his social platform "Truth Social": if the lawsuit is lost, "we would lose hundreds of billions of dollars... we would be finished!" Though the language is exaggerated, it indeed foreshadows a potential administrative and fiscal chaos.

Beyond Tariffs: The Future of Presidential Emergency Powers and the Reshaping of the Global Order

Regardless of the final verdict, the significance of this case has long transcended tariffs themselves. It is a nationwide referendum on the trend of an "imperial presidency" within the constitutional framework of the United States.

If the Supreme Court supports Trump, it would mean that IEEPA and other similar emergency statutes are granted nearly unlimited flexibility in interpretation. Future presidents—whether Republican or Democrat—could invoke a "national emergency" to advance their core economic policies, whether addressing climate change, healthcare crises, or industrial competition. The power of Congress as the legislative branch would be substantially weakened, and the balance of the separation of powers would tilt heavily toward the executive branch. In the short term, this could encourage Trump to pursue more radical and unpredictable trade measures in a second term, subjecting global supply chains to ongoing stress tests.

If the Supreme Court rules that Trump overstepped his authority, this would be a significant restriction on presidential power. It would reaffirm Congress's primary role in trade and taxation matters and establish a strong new precedent for the "major questions doctrine." Future presidents using emergency powers to address economic issues would face higher legal thresholds and stricter judicial scrutiny. For the Trump administration, this would be a major legal setback, forcing it to either seek cooperation with Congress to pass new tariff authorization legislation—which is extremely difficult in a divided Congress—or to completely change course.

However, even if the tariffs are rejected, the core logic of Trump's trade policy—reshaping bilateral trade relations through unilateral pressure—may not disappear. He might turn to other legal tools, such as more frequent use of Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act (on national security grounds), or impose barriers in other areas through executive orders. The trade war may not end but could instead take on different forms.

From a global perspective, this case has intensified the world's crisis of confidence in the rules-based trading system. When the stability of trade policy in the world's most powerful economy depends on the interpretation of a single phrase in a centuries-old law by nine justices, any long-term investment and supply chain planning becomes fraught with risk. This is accelerating the push among nations to advance "de-risking" strategies, reduce dependence on single markets, and strengthen regional trade agreements.

In the conference room of the Supreme Court, the nine justices are weighing more than just a ruling. The ink flowing from their pens will outline the contours of future presidential power, define how America operates in a globalized world, and affect the livelihoods of countless individuals—from factory workers in Detroit to chip manufacturers in Taipei, from German automotive executives to Indian parts producers. This silent wait is itself a tense footnote of our era: in a world craving certainty, the most important answers often take shape in a state of suspense. When the next bell tolls, regardless of the outcome, the reverberations will be profound.