Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch voiced concern Wednesday about granting presidents unlimited authority, pressing lawyers to define limits on executive power as the high court heard arguments over President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs.

Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, questioned both the “major questions” and “nondelegation” doctrines while asking Solicitor General D. John Sauer to outline boundaries to the administration’s broad defense of its tariff powers.

The conservative justice warned of “a one-way ratchet toward the gradual but continual accretion of power in the executive branch and away from the people’s elected representatives” in Congress.

Sauer acknowledged that under the same interpretation, a future president could declare climate change a national emergency and impose tariffs to address it — a scenario that appeared to underscore Gorsuch’s warning about unchecked executive authority.

Why It Matters

The Court heard oral arguments in two cases related to Trump’s ability to authorize tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) on Wednesday. IEEPA is a 1977 law that allows the president to “deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States, if the President declares a national emergency with respect to such threat.” 

Trump cites IEEPA in executive orders related to reciprocal tariffs, which he states he has the authority to implement. 

The Supreme Court currently has a 6-3 conservative majority and has previously ruled in favor of the Trump administration on key issues such as immigration enforcement and cuts at federal government agencies.

What To Know

Justice Neil Gorsuch questioned Sauer about the limitations of the president’s power. 

“I want it explained to me how you draw the line, because you say we shouldn’t be concerned because this is foreign affairs and the president has inherent authority, and so delegation off the books, more or less. And if that’s true, what would prohibit Congress from just abdicating all responsibility to regulate foreign commerce, for that matter, declare war, to the president,” Gorsuch said. 

Sauer responded, “We don’t contend that he could do that.” 

Several other justices questioned Sauer's arguments, including Justice Amy Coney Barrett. In a brief, Sauer and other attorneys for the administration had argued that the verbiage of IEEPA is “capacious,” granting the president the authority to control a broad range of transactions. 

Barrett said to Sauer during oral arguments, “You’ve referred to the other verbs in IEEPA as capacious. Would you really describe them as capacious? Because to me, things like nullify and void have definite meanings. I agree with you that regulate is a broader term, but those words I think are powerful, they give, they pack a punch, but I wouldn’t describe them as capacious in the sense that they have a wide range of meanings.” 

What People Are Saying

Justice Neil Gorsuch, during oral arguments: "Don't we have a serious retrieval problem here? Because once Congress delegates by a bare majority and the president signs it, and of course, every president would sign a law that gives them more authority, Congress can't take that back without a supermajority. And even, you know, even then it's going to be veto-proof. What president is ever going to give that power back? Pretty rare president."

Solicitor General D. John Sauer, during oral arguments: "I disagree because in January 2023, Congress voted to terminate one of the biggest IEEPA emergencies ever, the COVID emergency, and the president went along with that. So what the statute reflects is there's going to be the ability for a sort of political consensus against a declared emergency."

What Happens Next

The Supreme Court has yet to issue a ruling in the case.

Do you have a story that Newsweek should be covering? Do you have any questions about this story? Contact [email protected].