The Supreme Court heard arguments on November 5 in consolidated challenges to President Donald Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, probing whether the duties function as taxes Congress alone may authorize. Days later, Trump proposed using tariff receipts to send $2,000 to most Americans and apply any remainder to the national debt.
On November 5, 2025, the Court heard Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc., which test whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) authorizes the president to impose sweeping tariffs and, if so, whether that would violate the Constitution’s allocation of taxing power to Congress. The cases stem from Trump’s broad tariff program announced this spring and justified by national‑emergency declarations. (law.cornell.edu)
At argument, several justices pressed the administration on its claim that the IEEPA permits tariffs without explicit statutory language. Chief Justice John Roberts said tariffs are “the imposition of taxes on Americans,” a power “always” reserved to Congress, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor told Solicitor General D. John Sauer, “You want to say tariffs are not taxes, but that’s exactly what they are.” Sauer maintained the measures are regulatory tools rather than revenue raisers. (washingtonpost.com)
The administration’s position framed the tariffs as designed to curb emergencies tied to trade deficits and fentanyl trafficking, not to collect money. Sauer repeatedly characterized them as “regulatory tariffs, not a tax,” a stance that drew skepticism across the bench and highlighted potential “major questions” and nondelegation concerns. (washingtonpost.com)
Trump’s 2025 tariff program included a baseline 10% duty on most imports, with additional country‑specific levies, and followed earlier IEEPA orders aimed at Canada, Mexico, and China tied in part to fentanyl and migration rationales. Independent coverage has referred to April 2 as “Liberation Day,” when the White House unveiled the global plan. (theguardian.com)
Industry groups and economists have warned that U.S. importers and consumers shoulder much of the cost. The American Watch Association and Jewelers Vigilance Committee, in an amicus brief, described “cascading” harms in a sector reliant on Swiss and Japanese components. Academic work on recent tariff rounds similarly finds near‑full pass‑through of tariff costs into domestic prices. (jckonline.com)
Public sentiment has leaned negative: multiple national polls this spring found more Americans opposed than supported the tariff push, with disapproval generally in the mid‑50s to low‑60s, according to an aggregation by the Progressive Policy Institute and a Reuters/Ipsos survey. (progressivepolicy.org)
Separately, on Monday, November 10, Trump used Truth Social to propose a “tariff dividend” of at least $2,000 for most Americans, excluding high‑income households, and said any leftover funds would be used to pay down the national debt. The Daily Wire reported Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said he had not discussed the idea with the president and that any such payments would require congressional approval. The Wall Street Journal and other outlets also noted the proposal. (dailywire.com)
Trump’s pitch arrived as tariff collections have surged under the current regime. Treasury data show customs duties exceeded $100 billion in the first nine months of fiscal 2025, a record pace. CBP’s public dashboard likewise reports sharply higher year‑to‑date duty, tax, and fee collections. (reuters.com)
The national debt recently topped $38 trillion, underscoring the fiscal stakes the administration has tied to tariff receipts. Any plan to redirect tariff revenue to household checks or debt reduction would still need Congress’s assent. (jec.senate.gov)
A ruling that rejects IEEPA as a vehicle for broad tariff authority could significantly constrain a central piece of Trump’s economic strategy; if the court sides with the administration, it would mark a major expansion of presidential leeway over trade. A decision is expected later in the term. (apnews.com)
