By Admin 
The US Supreme Court may give its verdict on Thursday (November 6, 2025) amid the turmoil in the global business world with US President Donald Trump’s announcement of tariffs. In Wednesday’s hearing, judges raised questions about Trump’s legal authority over the tariffs. This stance of the court is not seen in support of Trump. On the other hand, the eyes of the whole world are fixed on this decision.
On November 5, the last hearing in this case started in the Supreme Court, in which most of the judges raised questions on Trump’s decision. Earlier, a lower federal court had ruled regarding the tariffs that Trump did not have the legal authority to impose tariffs on imports from many of America’s trading partners and to impose fentanyl tariffs on products from Canada, China and Mexico. After the lower court’s decision, Trump approached the Supreme Court.
Trump’s tariff policy has been challenged by small businessmen and a group of 12 states and three lawsuits have been filed regarding it. The basis in the petitions has been that before imposing the tariff, Trump did not think about its impact nor did he try to understand the situation. It has been said in the petition that Trump neither held any official meeting with the administration nor was any report prepared in this regard. Trump has to prove in the Supreme Court whether the decisions taken by him are logical and constitutionally correct or not.
According to the report of news agency IANS, the debate regarding tariff went on in the court for more than two and a half hours. The court raised questions on the Trump government’s decision on tariffs. Justice Sonia Sotomayor said, ‘You say that tariffs are not taxes, but in reality they are taxes. They are earning money, revenue from American citizens.
On this, Solicitor General John Sawyer said, ‘I cannot say much about this, it is a regulatory tariff, not a tax. It is true that tariffs increase revenue and this is only accidental. Apart from this, Justice John Roberts said, ‘Correct me if I am not right, but this argument is being given for the power to impose tariffs on any product of any country, in any quantity, for any period.’
Following Justice Roberts’ comments, US Solicitor General D. John Sawyer argued that IEEPA allows the President to regulate imports during a state of emergency. Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not agree with the arguments of the US Solicitor General. He asked Sawyer, ‘Can you cite any other place in the Code or any other time in history where the phrase regulating imports was used to give authority to impose a tariff?’
Additionally, Justice Barrett said that if Congress wanted to approve any limits on emergency tariffs in the future, it would need a two-thirds majority to override the President’s veto. Justice Barrett asked, ‘If Congress says, hey, we don’t like this, this gives the President too much authority under IEEPA, then he’s going to have a very difficult time taking that tariff power away from IEEPA, right? Although the court has not yet announced its final decision in the matter, the US Supreme Court has raised questions on the US President’s decision on tariffs.