The US Supreme Court has officially taken up the mantle to assess the contentious tariffs imposed by the Trump administration. This judicial review follows the lower courts' decisions which declared these tariffs as exceeding the presidential powers granted under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court issued a writ of certiorari to hear appeals in the combined cases of *Trump v. VOS Selections, Inc.* and *Learning Resources v. Trump*. Both the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the US District Court for the District of Columbia previously ruled against the administration, stating that while the IEEPA allows the president to "regulate" imports during a national emergency, it does not confer the authority to impose tariffs, which are essentially a form of tax.

The crux of the administration's argument, as stated in their petition for a writ of certiorari, is that tariffs have been "an ordinary tool of import regulation" historically utilized by presidents to manage foreign trade dynamics.

The tariffs in question originated from two executive orders aimed at combating drug trafficking and addressing economic threats posed by foreign trade barriers. Initially targeting Mexico, Canada, and China, these tariffs were later expanded to nearly all U.S. trading partners under the guise of "reciprocal tariffs." The administration justifies these measures as necessary responses to national emergencies, with tariff rates fluctuating based on ongoing negotiations with affected countries.

With oral arguments scheduled for this November, the Supreme Court's decision will not only clarify the limits of presidential power under the IEEPA but also set a significant precedent regarding the executive's ability to unilaterally influence international trade policies. As nations and global markets watch closely, the outcome could have far-reaching implications for future U.S. trade practices and international relations.