President Donald Trump’s administration has issued a warning to the U.S. Supreme Court about undermining the tariff powers of the POTUS.

In a sharp brief to the Supreme Court, the Department of Justice (DOJ) warned:

“Plaintiffs seek a ruling from this Court that would effectively disarm the President in the highly competitive arena of international trade.”

The words are a battle cry from the Trump administration as it fights to preserve the “Liberation Day” tariffs.

- Advertisement -

The Supreme Court is gearing up to hear arguments on Wednesday on whether President Trump’s sweeping tariffs, imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), overstep his authority, the Washington Examiner reported.

At the heart of this showdown are the Trump administration, defending its trade and foreign policy muscle, and opponents who argue the president is trampling on Congress’s constitutional taxing powers.

The tariffs target nations like Canada, Mexico, and China, tied by the administration to trade deficits and the fentanyl crisis.

However, that wasn’t the only revelation.

The administration’s “Liberation Day” tariffs, enacted via IEEPA, have already reshaped trade with major partners.

They’ve been a bargaining chip in framework deals with the European Union, the United Kingdom, Japan, South Korea, and China.

The DOJ insists these tariffs are vital to addressing declared emergencies.

“Plaintiffs would unwind trade arrangements worth trillions of dollars,” the DOJ argued in its brief, emphasizing how Trump has turned IEEPA tariffs into negotiated wins with global heavyweights.

It underscores the administration’s stance that stripping these powers would cripple U.S. negotiating strength.

Yet, the road hasn’t been smooth.

The Trump team lost at both the federal district and appeals court levels in related cases, setting the stage for this Supreme Court clash.

This case is the first major test of Trump’s policy agenda before the Supreme Court since his return to office in January.

- Advertisement -

The Trump administration filed a reply brief defending the tariffs as lawful under the 1977 IEEPA, claiming they’re essential to combat trade deficits and crises like fentanyl.

Historically, courts have often deferred to the executive on foreign policy matters, which could tilt the scales.

Still, the phrase “disarm the President” from the Justice Department’s brief echoes through this debate.

It’s a stark warning of what’s at stake if the tariffs are overturned.

Opponents aren’t backing down, though.

They argue IEEPA was never meant to grant tariffing power, a point they’ve hammered home in their legal challenges.

Their position is that no president before Trump has used this law or its predecessor to slap on tariffs, despite its invocation 69 times since 1977.

On the other side, challengers insist that taxation, including tariffs, is a power the Constitution reserves for Congress.

“IEEPA does not give the President any taxing or tariffing power,” their brief bluntly states.

They warn that Trump’s actions rewrite U.S. trade laws without legislative approval.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments in two combined cases, Learning Resources v. Trump and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, following lower court defeats for the administration.

The fallout from these earlier rulings has only intensified the stakes.

The clash isn’t just legal, as it will address a fundamental question of power balance.

The battle will decide who gets to control America’s trade arsenal, and it’s far from over.

If the Supreme Court sides with opponents, the ripple effects could unravel trade deals worth trillions.

If Trump wins, it’s a green light for even bolder moves.

That phrase “disarm the President” rings louder now than ever.

It’s a reminder of the tension gripping this case, as both sides brace for a decision that could redefine U.S. trade policy.

The decision will come down to whether the justices prioritize executive leverage or congressional authority.

Wednesday’s arguments are set to ignite fierce debate among policymakers, businesses, and citizens alike.

The next ruling could change everything.

READ MORE – Supreme Court Condemns Nitrogen Gas Executions: ‘Cruel and Unusual Punishment’