无论从哪方面来看，周三最高法院的辩论都有可能成为一部法律大片。
大法官将权衡特朗普政府单方面征收全面的全球关税时是否合法，这些行动的经济后果以数万亿美元计。在贸易数字的背后，是一场关于谁拥有征税、监管和宣布紧急状态的权力的宪法冲突。这一结果可能会重新定义，在权力分立让位于行政统治之前，总统可以在多大程度上扩大国会的授权。
总统侵占国会的地盘?
《宪法》第1条第8款赋予国会而不是总统“制定和征收税收、关税、捐税和消费税”的权力。关税传统上属于立法领域，任何增加收入的法案必须由众议院提出。
1977年，在越南时代对不受约束的行政行为的多年关注之后，国会颁布了国际紧急经济权力法(IEEPA)。它还允许总统在宣布国家紧急状态时，对威胁国家安全的某些国际经济交易进行监管。但是法令从未提及关税或税收。
包括卷入全球供应链的小企业主在内的批评者认为，特朗普总统对进口商品征收的全面、无限期关税超出了国会根据IEEPA授予的权力。伊利亚·索明(Ilya Somin)等保守的自由市场学者将此举称为“自大萧条以来最大的单边贸易行动”和“篡夺立法权”。他们警告说，允许总统在没有国会批准的情况下征收实际上是税收的东西，将会颠覆宪法的设计。
特朗普政府对此有不同看法。它争论道持续的贸易失衡和供应链脆弱性构成了对国家安全的“不寻常和非同寻常的威胁”。从这个前提出发，它声称IEEPA赋予总统在外国经济行为损害美国利益时“监管进出口”的权力。这种观点认为，关税主要不是筹集资金的财政措施，而是改变其他国家行为的监管工具，因此是长期以来公认的行政权力的一部分。
带有外交政策转折的重大问题学说
最高法院审理的这个案件代表了一个新定义的学说的转折点，这个学说是由最高法院的保守派多数发展而来的。
这重大问题学说(MQD)认为，没有国会的明确授权，无论是机构还是总统都不能做出“具有重大经济和政治意义”的决定。
最高法院已经利用这一原则推翻了主要的民主倡议。在西弗吉尼亚诉环境保护局(2022)一案中，法院否决了奥巴马时代的碳法规，认为国会必须在授权一个机构重塑整个行业之前明确表态。一年后，在Biden诉Nebraska一案中，最高法院用同样的理由推翻了学生贷款豁免，认为“免除或修改”贷款的一般权力并不能证明免除数千亿美元债务是正当的。
联邦巡回法院将同样的推理应用于特朗普的关税。它将全球贸易限制——几乎涵盖所有进口商品，没有时间限制——描述为“不为人知”和“变革性的”因为《国际环境保护法案》的文本没有明确提到关税或税收，法院得出结论，总统的行动没有通过MQD案的检验。
但政府反驳说，MQD以前从未被用于总统有关外交事务的行动。政府辩称，将这一原则延伸到国家安全和国际商业领域，将削弱首席执行官在国会无法实时预测或立法的危机中迅速采取行动的能力。
关税是一种税，还是只是监管的另一个名称?
关税案的核心是一个看似简单的IEEPA法定短语:“监管”的权力。。。进口。”下级法院强调“监管的权力不是征税的权力。”他们说，如果以其他方式解读，将会把国会最基本的权力之一转移给总统。
特朗普政府认为，这个短语是一个“历史上包含关税的广阔概念”。
简而言之，政府希望最高法院不要将关税视为税收，而是作为管理经济威胁的众多工具之一。一些批评者回应说，这样的解释将抹去对总统紧急权力的任何有意义的限制——包括保守派的声音戈德华特研究所自由主义智囊团卡托研究所，和左倾布伦南中心。他们警告说，如果关税符合这样一个定义，那么几乎任何贸易限制都可以被视为“管制进口，有效地给予总统一个长期许可，让他们自己重塑全球商业，不受任何国会监督或检查。
法院:低于限制，高于尊重
特朗普政府对行政权的积极主张在下级联邦法院遇到了阻力，法官在一些案件中发现，政府超越了宪法或法律的界限和程序规范。最近，罗德岛的一名联邦法官临时订购在几个州提起诉讼后，特朗普政府在联邦政府关闭期间继续资助补充营养援助计划(SNAP)。
然而，在许多情况下，最高法院的多数派表现出愿意尊重行政权力的广泛主张，特别是在涉及国家安全或外交事务时。例如，在四月高等法院以5比4做出裁决特朗普政府可以根据《外国敌人法》恢复驱逐被指控的委内瑞拉帮派成员，但表示必须给予被拘留者适当的程序来质疑他们的驱逐。
这种裁决的最终结果不仅仅是对总统自由裁量权的肯定，而是总统权力的急剧扩张。
定义“紧急情况”
IEEPA只允许总统采取行动应对“不寻常和非同寻常的威胁”。长期贸易赤字是否符合这一定义是最高法院面临的一个核心问题。
奥巴马政府辩称，现代经济和全球化供应链已将贸易失衡转化为真正的安全风险。反对者反驳说，长期的经济状况，无论多么严重，都不是“不寻常的”。他们说，将普通的挑战重新定义为紧急事件会使法定时效失去意义。
宪法的转折点
关税诉讼的金额远远超过数万亿美元。也考验执行力的边界。无论最高法院如何裁决，这一决定都将有助于定义美国治理的下一阶段:宪法规定的权力分立是否仍然是一个真正的约束，或者现代总统的权力是否继续扩大。
What's at stake in high-profile Supreme Court case on tariffs: ANALYSIS
By any measure, the arguments before the Supreme Court on Wednesday have the makings of a legal blockbuster.
The justices will weigh whether the Trump administration acted lawfully when it unilaterally imposed sweeping global tariffs -- actions with economic consequences measured in the trillions of dollars. Beneath the trade numbers lies a constitutional clash over who holds the power to tax, regulate and declare emergencies. The outcome could redefine how far a president can stretch a congressional delegation of authority before the separation of powers gives way to executive rule.
Presidential encroachment on congressional turf?
Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitutiongives Congress, not the president, the power to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises." Tariffs traditionally fall within that legislative domain, and any bill raising revenue must originate in the House of Representatives.
In 1977, after years of concern during the Vietnam era about unchecked executive action, Congress enacted theInternational Emergency Economic Powers Act(IEEPA). It also allows the president, upon declaring a national emergency, to regulate certain international economic transactions that threaten national security. But the statute never mentions duties or taxes.
Critics, including small business owners entangled in global supply chains, argue that President Trump’s sweeping, indefinite tariffs on imports exceed the powers Congress granted under IEEPA. Conservative, free-market scholars such as Ilya Somin have called the move "the largest unilateral trade action since the Great Depression" and "a usurpation of legislative power." They warn that allowing a president to impose what are effectively taxes without congressional approval would flip the constitutional design on its head.
The Trump administration sees it differently. Ithas arguedthat persistent trade imbalances and supply-chain vulnerabilities amount to an "unusual and extraordinary threat" to national security. From that premise, it claims IEEPA gives the president the authority to "regulate importation and exportation" when foreign economic behavior undermines U.S. interests. Tariffs, the argument goes, are not primarily fiscal measures to raise money, but regulatory tools to change other nations’ conduct, and so part of a long-recognized arsenal of executive power.
The major questions doctrine, with a foreign-policy twist
The case before the Supreme Court represents an inflection point for a newly defined doctrine developed by the court’s conservative majority.
Themajor questions doctrine(MQD) holds that neither agencies nor presidents can make decisions of "vast economic and political significance" without a clear authorization from Congress.
The court has already used this doctrine to strike down major Democratic initiatives. In West Virginia v. EPA (2022), the court blocked Obama-era carbon regulations, holding that Congress must speak clearly before authorizing an agency to reshape an entire industry. One year later, in Biden v. Nebraska, it used the same justification to strike down student loan forgiveness, finding that a general power to "waive or modify" loans did not justify erasing hundreds of billions of dollars in debt.
The Federal Circuit applied that same reasoning to Trump’s tariffs. It described the global trade restrictions -- covering nearly all imports, with no time limit -- as both "unheralded" and "transformative." Because IEEPA’s text contains no clear reference to tariffs or taxation, the court concluded that the president’s action failed the MQD test.
But the administration counters that the MQD has never before been applied to presidential actions regarding foreign affairs. Extending the doctrine to national security and international commerce, the administration argues, would hamstring the chief executive’s ability to act swiftly in crises that Congress cannot predict or legislate in real time.
Is a tariff a tax, or just regulation by another name?
At the center of the tariffs case is a deceptively simple IEEPA statutory phrase: the power "to regulate . . . importation." Lower courts emphasized that "the power to regulate is not the power to tax." Reading it otherwise, they said, would transfer one of Congress’ most fundamental powers to the president.
The Trump administration contends that the phrase is a "capacious concept that has historically encompassed tariffs."
In short, the administration wants the Supreme Court to treat tariffs not as taxes, but as one tool among many for managing economic threats. Some critics respond that such an interpretation would erase any meaningful limit on presidential emergency powers – voices that include the conservativeGoldwater Institute, the libertarian think-tankCato Institute, and the left-leaningBrennan Center. If tariffs qualify for such a definition, they warn, then almost any trade restriction could be justified as "regulating importation, effectively giving presidents a standing license to reshape global commerce on their own, without any congressional oversight or checks.
The courts: Limits below, deference above
The Trump administration’s aggressive assertions of executive power are meeting resistance in the lower federal courts, with judges finding in some cases that the administration exceeded constitutional or statutory bounds and procedural norms. Most recently, a federal judge in Rhode Islandtemporarily orderedthe Trump administration to continue funding the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) amid the federal government shutdown, following a lawsuit by several states.
Yet in many cases, the Supreme Court majority has shown a willingness to defer to broad claims of executive authority, particularly when national security or foreign affairs are invoked. In April, for example, thehigh court ruled 5-4that the Trump administration could resume deportations of alleged Venezuelan gang members under the Alien Enemies Act, but said detainees must be given due process to challenge their removal.
The net result of such rulings is not merely an affirming of presidential discretion, but a dramatic expansion of presidential power.
Defining an 'emergency'
IEEPA allows presidential action only in response to an "unusual and extraordinary threat." Whether long-standing trade deficits qualify under that definition is a central question before the Supreme Court.
The administration argues that modern economies and globalized supply chains have turned trade imbalances into genuine security risks.Opponents counter that chronic economic conditions, however serious, are hardly "unusual." Redefining ordinary challenges as emergencies, they say, would render the statutory limitation meaningless.
A constitutional inflection point
The tariffs litigation is about far more than trillions of dollars. It also tests the boundaries of executive power. However the Supreme Court may rule, the decision will help define the next phase of American governance: whether the constitutional separation of powers remains a real constraint, or whether the powers of the modern presidency continue to expand.
