Following a federal appeals court

Following a federal appeals court ruling that deemed many of his tariffs illegal, the Trump administration filed an emergency appeal with the Supreme Court on September 3, 2025. The administration is asking the justices to quickly confirm that the president has broad authority to impose trade penalties during a declared national emergency. Background on the tariff challengeAppeals court ruling: A 7-4 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that Trump’s use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs on numerous countries was illegal. The ruling held that the power to impose taxes, including tariffs, is a core congressional power. The court allowed the tariffs to remain in place until October 14, to give the administration time to appeal.Tariffs in question: The federal court ruling applies to the new reciprocal tariffs imposed since Trump took office in January 2025. It also covers tariffs announced in February and April against Canada, China, and Mexico, often justified by concerns over drug trafficking.Tariffs not affected: The ruling does not cover tariffs imposed during Trump’s first term, such as those on steel, aluminum, and certain Chinese goods, because those were imposed under different laws. Trump administration’s appealReasoning: In its 251-page appeal, the administration argued that a swift reversal is necessary to prevent an “economic catastrophe” and to avoid unraveling trade deals made with multiple nations. The administration invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), linking new tariffs on India to the “national emergency regarding Russia’s war in Ukraine”.Request for expedited ruling: The administration’s filing emphasizes the high stakes of the case and seeks a rapid decision from the court. Potential consequencesImpact on tariffs: If the Supreme Court rules against the administration, it could be forced to remove a broad range of tariffs and refund billions of dollars in collected duties.Shift in power: The case tests the limits of presidential authority over trade policy, a power that has historically been delegated by Congress. The outcome could have major implications for the separation of powers.Uncertain future: The appeal creates significant uncertainty for American businesses, which face the possibility of rapid changes to trade policy and tariffs.