On January 9, the U.S. Supreme Court refrained from issuing a ruling on the legality of tariffs imposed by the Donald Trump administration under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
While there were initial speculations about a possible ruling on this date, the tariff case was notably absent from the list of decisions announced that day.
Reuters reported that the Supreme Court only delivered a verdict on a single criminal case, postponing its judgment on the case concerning the legality of Trump’s comprehensive global tariff measures. Typically, the Supreme Court announces decision release dates in advance but doesn’t disclose which specific cases will be ruled upon.
Previously, local media outlets, including CNBC, had suggested the possibility of the Supreme Court including a tariff-related ruling in its regular decision announcement on January 9.
This led to market speculation that a decision might be unveiled around 10:00 a.m. Eastern Time. However, no conclusion was reached.
The lawsuit’s core issue revolves around whether the president has the authority to impose wide-ranging tariffs under the IEEPA, and if deemed illegal, whether the administration must refund already collected tariffs to importers.
The case underwent oral arguments before the Supreme Court on November 5 last year. During the session, both conservative and liberal justices expressed doubts about whether the IEEPA, enacted in 1977 for use in national emergencies, grants tariff-imposing authority. This led to widespread speculation about a potential ruling unfavorable to the Trump administration. Lower courts have already concluded that President Trump exceeded his legal authority in imposing these tariffs.
President Trump has consistently argued that the tariffs have strengthened America’s financial position. In a social media post on January 2, he claimed that a Supreme Court ruling against the tariffs would deal a terrible blow to the U.S.
Trump invoked the IEEPA, citing a national emergency related to the U.S. trade deficit, to impose what he termed reciprocal tariffs on goods imported from various countries.
He initially levied a 25% tariff on South Korea but later negotiated it down to 15%. Similar 15% reciprocal tariffs were established with Japan and the European Union (EU) through negotiations.
Furthermore, citing the illegal smuggling of fentanyl and other drugs as a national emergency, Trump used the same law to impose fentanyl tariffs on China, Canada, and Mexico.
This lawsuit was filed by companies adversely affected by the tariffs and the governments of 12 states led by Democratic governors. The ruling is viewed as a crucial test of presidential authority and a watershed moment in determining the extent to which the Supreme Court will check the broad claims of power by a Republican president following Trump’s potential re-election in January 2025.
In this context, U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen mentioned at a Minnesota Economic Club event on January 8 that a mishmash ruling could emerge from this case. She noted that an illegal ruling could weaken negotiation power, but also indicated that they might consider a Plan B, using other legal grounds like Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 to maintain most tariffs. However, she expressed concern that a large-scale refund order could hamper the administration’s efforts to reduce the budget deficit.
Treasury Department data indicates that tariffs from the Trump administration are projected to generate approximately 195 billion USD in the 2025 fiscal year (October 2024 to September 2025) and an additional 62 billion USD in the 2026 fiscal year.
Reuters reported that some companies are preparing legal responses, including preemptive lawsuits against the government, in anticipation of a potential refund order.