US President Donald Trump’s administration has asked the US Supreme Court to intervene in defense of his expansive tariff regime, appealing a lower court ruling that struck down key elements of the policy. The request, filed Wednesday, seeks an expedited hearing to preserve measures imposed under a 1977 emergency law that has become central to the Republican president’s economic strategy.

The Justice Department is challenging an August 29 decision by a federal appeals court, which concluded that Trump exceeded his authority by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), delivering a major blow to one of Trump’s signature priorities in his second term.

Administration lawyers urged the justices to fast-track their review, asking the court to decide by September 10 whether to take up the case and, if so, to hear arguments in November. The court’s new term opens October 6.

“The stakes in this case could not be higher,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in his filing. He argued that Trump’s tariff authority was critical to US security and prosperity, saying, “The President and his cabinet officials have determined that the tariffs are promoting peace and unprecedented economic prosperity, and that the denial of tariff authority would expose our nation to trade retaliation without effective defenses and thrust America back to the brink of economic catastrophe.”

Lawyers representing small businesses that oppose the tariffs said they would not resist a Supreme Court hearing. Jeffrey Schwab of the Liberty Justice Center expressed confidence they would prevail. “These unlawful tariffs are inflicting serious harm on small businesses and jeopardizing their survival. We hope for a prompt resolution of this case for our clients,” he said.

Related News

Kabul welcomes rejection of foreign bases; new US citizen released

China urges DPRK to oppose ‘hegemony’, in veiled swing at US

Wider context

The tariffs are part of a trade war Trump reignited upon returning to office in January. His measures have unsettled global markets, strained relations with US partners, and fueled wider economic uncertainty. Tariffs remain a central tool in Trump’s foreign policy playbook, used both to renegotiate trade deals and to pressure governments that export goods to the United States.

The dispute before the courts centers on Trump’s reliance on IEEPA to impose “reciprocal” tariffs aimed at reducing trade deficits, along with additional duties levied in February against China, Canada, and Mexico. Trump said those measures were designed to curb fentanyl and other illicit drugs entering the United States.

Traditionally, IEEPA has been used to impose sanctions on "hostile actors" or to freeze assets during national emergencies. Before Trump, the law had never been used as a basis for tariffs. Justice Department lawyers insist its emergency provisions permit the president not only to regulate imports but also to block them outright.

A broader wave of litigation targeting Trump’s trade agenda

The appeals court ruling emerged from two lawsuits, one filed by five small importers, including a New York-based wine and spirits distributor and a Pennsylvania fishing retailer, and another brought by a coalition of 12 states, most led by Democrats. Their central claim is that the Constitution grants Congress, not the president, authority over tariffs and taxation, and that any transfer of such powers must be explicitly limited.

The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the challengers in a 7–4 decision, rejecting Trump’s interpretation of IEEPA. “It seems unlikely that Congress intended, in enacting IEEPA, to depart from its past practice and grant the President unlimited authority to impose tariffs,” the court wrote. Judges also found the administration’s expansive reading of the law ran afoul of the Supreme Court’s “major questions” doctrine, which requires clear congressional authorization for executive actions of sweeping economic and political impact.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, in a statement filed alongside the government’s appeal, pressed the justices to act quickly, warning that the lower court’s ruling undermines Trump’s ability “to conduct real-world diplomacy and his ability to protect the national security and economy of the United States.”

The case is part of a broader wave of litigation targeting Trump’s trade agenda. In May, the US Court of International Trade ruled against his tariff policies, and another Washington court has also determined that IEEPA does not authorize such duties. At least eight challenges are currently underway, including one from California.