Tonight, another showdown between Costco and President Trump. This time, not over politics, but over money. The retail giant suing the Trump administration for a full refund of the tariffs they've paid on imported goods under Trump's tariff plan.>> My fellow Americans, this is Liberation Day. >> The administration used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, AIPA for short, to put the tariffs in place. But now, the Supreme Court will decide whether the use of this nearly 50year-old law was unlawful ...

The Supreme Court is deciding one of the biggest issues on President Trump's policy agenda, his tariffs. The court is deciding whether President Trump had the authority to issue sweeping tariffs under an emergency law called AIPA, which stands for the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Based on the oral arguments, the justice did seem skeptical that President Trump has the power to do this.And while we don't know what the ruling is going to be yet, it looks like it's going to be an uphill battle f ...

Case Overview - The Supreme Court is hearing a major case concerning President Trump's authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) [1] - The central question is whether the President can use IEEPA to impose tariffs, given that the act doesn't explicitly mention tariffs or duties [1][2] - Lower courts, including the International Court of Trade, have ruled against the President's use of IEEPA for tariffs [3] Legal Arguments - The President argues that the fentanyl crisis and trade deficit constitute "unusual and extraordinary circumstances," justifying the use of emergency powers [2] - Opponents argue that imposing tariffs is a power that belongs to Congress, not the President [2] - Amicus briefs overwhelmingly oppose the tariffs, with 40 briefs against and 10 in favor, including submissions from the Chamber of Commerce, small businesses, and law professors [4] Key Players - The plaintiffs are small businesses, including a wine exporter and a toy goods company [5] - Neal Katyal, a former acting solicitor general with an hourly rate of $3,000, is arguing for the plaintiffs [5] - The solicitor general is arguing on the other side, representing the government [6] Potential Outcomes and Implications - A ruling against the President would limit the use of IEEPA for imposing tariffs [10] - Even if the President loses the case, the administration may seek other ways to implement tariffs [11] - Bloomberg Economics estimates the U S is collecting $556 million daily in IEEPA tariffs, projecting over $140 billion by the end of 2025, raising questions about potential reimbursements [13]

Legal & Policy Analysis - The Supreme Court justices are questioning the Trump administration's legal authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) [1][2] - A key point of contention is whether President Trump can impose tariffs without congressional approval, particularly concerning the power of the purse [2][3] - The administration is attempting to justify the tariffs by framing them as responses to foreign actors and national emergencies, rather than revenue raising measures [4] - The justices are questioning whether trade imbalances meet the legal standard for declaring a national emergency to invoke IEEPA tariffs [4][5] Trade & Economic Impact - Approximately 60% of the tariffs implemented this term are tied to IEEPA, indicating potentially broad implications [6] - The administration is reportedly preparing to use other authorities, such as Section 232 national security tariffs, suggesting that tariffs are likely to persist [6] - The plaintiffs in the case argue that the administration could have utilized other tariff powers [5] Supreme Court's Role - This case marks the first time the Supreme Court is hearing a case related to President Trump's actual policy with potentially long-standing impact, rather than an emergency ruling [8] - The court has previously ruled on an emergency basis regarding President Trump's policies [8]

Tariffs & Legal Challenges - The Supreme Court is hearing arguments on the legality of President Trump's tariffs, a decision with significant implications [1][2][3] - The Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to reverse a lower court ruling that deemed most of the tariffs an illegal use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) [3] - An estimated $90 billion in tariff revenue is at stake, which the Treasury might have to refund if the administration loses the case [4][16] - Businesses argue that the power to regulate imports is not the same as the power to tax, challenging the legality of the tariffs [5] - The companies suing the administration are primarily small firms, including toy manufacturers, a wine importer, and an apparel company [6] Potential Economic Impact & Alternative Measures - If the Supreme Court strikes down the tariffs, it could significantly limit the president's maneuvering room on tariffs [12] - The Treasury has contingency plans and could potentially reimpose tariffs using alternative measures like Section 301 or Section 232, although these are more cumbersome [10][13] - The introduction of alternative measures could reintroduce tariff volatility and policy uncertainties [14] - If the administration loses the case, the Treasury would have to return approximately $90 billion in revenue collected under IEEPA tariffs, potentially impacting the deficit [4][16] Timeline & Market Reaction - A decision from the Supreme Court is expected by the end of the year, but could come at any time [9] - Uncertainty surrounding the Supreme Court's decision and potential alternative tariff measures contributed to market selloffs [14]

Core Points - The Supreme Court is hearing arguments regarding the legality of President Trump's tariffs, which could have significant implications for tariff revenue and presidential authority [1][2][3] - The Trump administration is seeking to reverse a lower court ruling that deemed most tariffs illegal under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which has never been used for such purposes before [3][5] - An estimated $90 billion in tariff revenue is at stake, which the Treasury may have to return if the administration loses the case [4][16] Legal Context - The power to impose tariffs is constitutionally granted to Congress, and the administration's use of the 1977 law to impose tariffs is being challenged [4][5] - The distinction between "regulating" and "taxing" is central to the arguments, with businesses contending that the administration's actions exceed its legal authority [5] Stakeholders - The cases are brought by small firms, including toy manufacturers and a wine importer, rather than large corporations [6] - Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant is present at the Supreme Court, indicating the administration's high stakes in the outcome [2] Potential Outcomes - The Supreme Court's decision could be expedited, with expectations of a ruling by the end of the year [8][9] - If the tariffs are struck down, the administration may resort to alternative measures, though these would be more cumbersome and less direct [10][11][12] Market Implications - The potential for tariff refunds could negatively impact the bond market, as the Treasury would face challenges in managing its revenue and deficit [16]

Legal & Policy Landscape - The Supreme Court will hear cases regarding the legality of President Trump's tariff policy, specifically whether the president can unilaterally set tariffs without Congressional approval [1] - The core legal question revolves around the interpretation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and whether it grants the president the power to impose global tariffs without a defined end date [2][3][4] - Legal experts suggest the Supreme Court might rule against President Trump, despite past tendencies to favor his cases, due to lower court rulings against the administration on these issues [5][6] - The case raises separation of powers concerns, questioning the extent of presidential power versus Congressional authority, particularly regarding tariff setting [7] Financial & Economic Implications - The Supreme Court will also consider President Trump's ability to withhold $4 billion in foreign aid spending previously approved by Congress [8] - This case also touches upon the "power of the purse," explicitly granted to Congress by the Constitution, and the extent to which the executive branch can control allocated funds [10] - The court's decision may differentiate between Congress directing the executive branch to spend money versus dictating how the money should be spent [11][12]

Geopolitical Landscape & Trade Negotiations - The ruling weakens the administration's ability to use tariffs as leverage in trade negotiations [1] - Russia, India, and China are signaling solidarity, potentially creating a new world order, but it's more symbolic than a concrete alliance [2][6] - The US needs to actively underscore its relationships with NATO, the European Union, and other world democracies [7] Tariffs & Trade Policy - Clarity on tariffs is not expected in the short term [1][9] - Many tariffs are not under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act [9] - Even if the Supreme Court undermines the current tariff policy, the administration can revisit it through other means, potentially imposing tariffs of up to 50% [10] - Tariffs will remain a tool for the administration despite any court decisions [11] - Uncertainty surrounding tariffs is detrimental to business operations [11] Legal & Political Challenges - The Supreme Court is revisiting Trump's authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act [4] - The Supreme Court is also reviewing Trump's power over the Fed, specifically regarding the potential firing of the Fed Governor [4]

Legal & Regulatory Landscape - US Court of Appeals ruled that the bulk of President Trump's tariffs are not legally justified, stating he overstepped his legal authority [1] - The ruling impacts approximately 70% of tariff revenues [4] - The Trump administration is expected to appeal the decision [2] - A lower court, the US Court of for International Trade, had previously ruled against the tariffs [3] Potential Financial Implications - If the case is lost, the government could be ordered to refund hundreds of billions, potentially up to a trillion dollars, in tariffs to companies [6] - This refund process would create a logistical and financial nightmare for the government [6] Industry Outlook - Most US businesses recognize that the ruling does not bring immediate change [7] - Uncertainty for businesses is expected to persist even if the tariffs are struck down, as the administration may use another tariff authority [7]

Legal & Trade Implications - US Appeals Court ruled many of Trump's tariffs as illegal [1] - The court stated the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not grant the power to levy these tariffs [1] - Trump is likely to appeal this ruling to the Supreme Court [1]