Lead
The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments Wednesday over whether President Donald Trump exceeded his authority when he imposed sweeping tariffs under emergency powers. Wilbur Ross, commerce secretary from 2017 to 2021 and an architect of Trump’s earlier trade measures, told Fortune he believes the president is unlikely to abandon the tariff program even if parts are struck down. The dispute centers on the administration’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) rather than congressional tariff authority. Ross warned that a blanket nullification of the tariffs would produce severe market and policy complications.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Wednesday on the legality of tariffs imposed under IEEPA; plaintiffs include importers and small manufacturers.
- The administration applied tariffs affecting more than 100 countries and “nearly every” U.S. trading partner, generating about $195 billion in federal receipts (CRFB estimate).
- Wilbur Ross, commerce secretary from 2017–2021, says Trump is “too committed” to abandon the policy even after an adverse ruling.
- Legal challenge hinges on Article I, Section 8 (tariff authority) versus IEEPA’s emergency powers; critics argue trade deficits don’t qualify as a national emergency.
- Ross expects the Court to potentially strike narrow, politically driven levies—he cited the 40% duty on Brazilian imports layered atop a prior 10% levy as vulnerable.
- Markets face greater harm from prolonged uncertainty than from a single adverse ruling, according to Ross and market observers.
Background
Under the Constitution (Article I, Section 8), Congress has the power to impose duties and tariffs. Presidents have historically used statutory delegations to act on trade—one recent example was Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, invoked in 2018 to justify an earlier round of tariffs. That earlier effort included public hearings and a detailed administrative record that courts ultimately upheld in several instances.
In the current program, the administration relied on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, which grants presidents authority to regulate commerce during declared national emergencies. The statute does not explicitly mention duties; opponents say using IEEPA to impose widespread tariffs stretches the law’s text. Ross contrasts the two efforts, saying his 2018 team built a fuller administrative case, whereas the more recent rollout moved faster and with less documentation.
Main Event
The Supreme Court will evaluate lawsuits brought by importers and smaller manufacturers who argue the administration usurped Congress’s constitutional power to tax and regulate trade. The government defends its actions by pointing to IEEPA’s broad grant to regulate commerce during “unusual and extraordinary threats,” arguing that the statute gives the president meaningful discretion.
The tariff program covers goods from across the globe; Ross and other administration allies frame some duties—such as those targeting Mexico, China and Canada—as responses to national-security-adjacent threats, including the flow of fentanyl and precursor chemicals. Other levies, like the 40% charge on certain Brazilian imports (preceded earlier in the year by a 10% tariff), have been criticized as politically motivated.
Ross told Fortune he believes a wholesale invalidation is unlikely. He urged caution about the consequences of a total strike: refunding revenues—about $195 billion by CRFB tally—would raise complex questions about whether importers, downstream companies or consumers should be reimbursed and how to unwind months of market disruption.
Analysis & Implications
Legally, the Court’s decision will define the scope of modern emergency economic powers. A broad ruling for the plaintiffs would reassert congressional primacy over tariff-setting; a narrow ruling or one that allows most levies to stand would effectively expand executive authority in trade policy. Either outcome will shape how future administrations approach trade actions when facing perceived economic or national-security threats.
Politically, Ross notes that protectionist measures now cross traditional party lines—union backing for tariffs complicates a straight partisan response. Democrats torn between opposing Trump and defending labor interests could leave the president with unusual coalitions if he seeks congressional codification of tariff policies.
Economically, markets dislike ambiguity. Even limited carve-outs by the Court could leave firms unsure which lines of merchandise will face duties and which won’t, disrupting supply chains and investment planning. Ross suggests the administration may respond by seeking a new statutory basis or pressing Congress for explicit authority to avoid repeat litigation and uncertainty.
Comparison & Data
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Government revenue from tariffs | $195 billion (CRFB) |
| Countries affected | More than 100 |
| Brazil tariff cited | 40% (added to prior 10%) |
| Earlier legal basis (2018) | Section 232 (Trade Expansion Act) |
The figures above highlight scale and precedent. The $195 billion estimate from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget captures cumulative receipts since implementation; more granular firm-level impacts vary by sector. Comparing the 2018 Section 232 process—characterized by extensive administrative records—with the current IEEPA-based approach helps explain why some legal analysts judge the new program more vulnerable in court.
Reactions & Quotes
“He’s too committed to the tariff to give it up.”
Wilbur Ross, former U.S. commerce secretary
Ross used this line to argue that even a partial judicial setback will not convince the president to abandon protectionist measures. He framed the tariff program as a long-term political and policy investment that the administration is unlikely to surrender.
“That would be a pretty horrific decision.”
Wilbur Ross, former U.S. commerce secretary
Ross warned that a total nullification could force complicated repayment decisions and produce global market turmoil—points he raised to underscore the potential spillovers beyond immediate legal questions.
“What markets have trouble with is uncertainty.”
Wilbur Ross, former U.S. commerce secretary
This observation echoed broader market commentary: analysts emphasize that the transition path and legal clarity matter as much to firms and investors as any single judicial outcome.
Unconfirmed
- Which specific tariffs the Supreme Court will choose to invalidate remains unknown; commentators’ lists of vulnerable levies are speculative.
- Whether the Court will order refunds and, if so, who would be eligible—importers, downstream companies or consumers—is unresolved.
- It is unconfirmed whether the White House will immediately seek a new statutory pathway or press Congress to codify the tariffs if parts of the program are struck down.
Bottom Line
The Supreme Court’s review will test the boundary between congressional tariff authority and executive emergency powers. Wilbur Ross, who helped design earlier Trump-era trade measures, believes the president is politically and personally invested enough in tariffs that he will not simply abandon them after an adverse ruling.
Practical consequences matter: even if the Court narrows authority and removes particular levies, prolonged legal and political uncertainty will continue to affect supply chains, investment decisions and international relations. Observers should watch for the Court’s reasoning—whether textual limits, administrative procedure or policy considerations drive the outcome—and for any legislative or administrative moves that follow.
Sources
- Fortune (news media) — original interview and reporting on Wilbur Ross’s comments and the Supreme Court hearing.
- Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) (fiscal policy think tank) — estimate of approximately $195 billion in tariff revenue attributed to the program.
- Supreme Court of the United States (official) — docket and arguments page for the case (see Court calendar for hearing details).