Supreme Court Hearing Begins Over Trump Admin Tariffs: Frontlines Report

TPUSA Frontlines White House Correspondent Monica Paige reported Wednesday from the US Supreme Court about the ongoing legal battle between the White House and 12 states over the sweeping tariffs on imports from most US trading partners. Oral arguments for the case began Wednesday. 

“The Trump administration faces off against small businesses and a group of states who believe that most of the tariffs that are put in place are illegal and should be struck down,” Paige noted. “In implementing the sweeping tariffs on nearly all imported goods from nearly all US trading partners, the president used the 1977 international emergency economic powers act – otherwise known as IEEPA.”

The Trump administration cites IEEPA as the legal basis for its tariff initiative.

“The United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals held in United States v. Yoshida International that it was ‘incontestable that [TWEA] does in fact delegate to the President, for use during war or during national emergency only, the power to regulate importation,” according to IEEPA.”

Amid criticism that tariffs negatively affect the US economy, the White House argues contrarily.

The tariffs will help cut the trade deficit by $600 billion, according to Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt. On another note, Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent stated that the effects of IEEPA have limited the threat of fentanyl coming into the US from China. 

President Trump thinks the country will be “immeasurably hurt” and that the “economy would go to hell,” if the tariffs are overturned by the Supreme Court. However, a “plan B” is in place if this happens, Leavitt revealed Tuesday. 

“We look forward to ultimate victory on this matter,” White House deputy spokesperson Kush Desai stated. “President Trump lawfully exercised the tariff powers granted to him by Congress to defend our national and economic security from foreign threats.”

“While the White House expresses optimism ahead of the arguments, [the Supreme Court’s] ruling will either cement or gut one of the boldest executive trade gambles in history,” Paige concluded.