Trade Authority Tested in the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is expected to rule that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) doesn’t give the president sweeping authority to impose tariffs. Based on November oral arguments, at least five Justices (including Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Neil Gorsuch, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson) appear poised to reject the administration’s broad interpretation of presidential authority under the statute. The core legal question: Does IEEPA’s authorization to regulate imports extend to unilateral tariff authority, and would such a delegation violate Congress’s constitutional power over taxation and foreign commerce? Justice Brett Kavanaugh signaled likely dissent, arguing that if IEEPA permits blocking imports, taxing them should be permissible.

A ruling against the president will likely hinge on the “Major Questions Doctrine,” which requires clear congressional authorization for actions of vast economic and political significance. Because IEEPA never mentions tariffs and no president has invoked it this way in nearly 50 years, the Court is expected to interpret the statute narrowly, concluding that regulating imports doesn’t include imposing tariffs. This approach would sidestep a broader constitutional ruling on delegation.

A decision could come before year-end. The expedited schedule signals urgency, though the real outcome will be shaped in private deliberations, not based only on the oral arguments already heard. Importantly, this case doesn’t involve existing Section 232 tariffs on steel, aluminum, autos, wood products, and, potentially, pharmaceuticals and semiconductors.

In the event tariffs are struck down, the Court must address refunds that could exceed $100 billion, though applying the decision prospectively (avoiding refunds) was discussed. A loss of IEEPA authority would likely push Trump and future administrations toward greater reliance on Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act to advance trade agendas.

Election Stakes and Redistricting Battles Ahead

With the 2026 midterms less than a year away, the stakes couldn’t be higher. Historically, the out-of-power party tends to gain ground, but this cycle is shaping up as a test of political alignment and a fierce battle for control.

The Senate map is particularly challenging for Democrats: They’re defending fewer seats overall, but many in competitive states. In the House, Democrats need a net gain of just three seats to flip control—a possibility amplified by recent redistricting shifts that could upend historical patterns. National factors such as Trump’s approval rating and economic conditions will heavily influence voter behavior and the balance of power in the 120th Congress.

Republicans’ early redistricting advantage has eroded after a wave of Democratic wins and court rulings. A Utah judge’s surprise decision to create a safe Democratic seat in Salt Lake County forces four GOP incumbents to compete for three Republican districts. Similar setbacks include California’s loss of up to five GOP seats under Prop 50, an Ohio compromise map preserving Democratic chances in swing districts, and a Virginia plan likely to add three Democratic seats. While Republicans secured favorable maps in North Carolina and Missouri, their push in Texas was blocked, and efforts in Indiana and Kansas have stalled despite White House pressure. Florida’s upcoming redistricting could deliver GOP gains, but the party will need to tread carefully to maximize gains without overstretching its voter base.

While the GOP’s early advantage has diminished, the landscape remains fluid. An upcoming Supreme Court decision on the Voting Rights Act in Louisiana could further reshape the balance of power in unexpected ways.