The Supreme Court now has a chance to have the final say on Trump's tariffs
The Supreme Court is being asked by two toy companies to rule on the legal fight over President Trump's tariffs, giving the nation's highest court the chance to determine whether the president has the authority to enact some of his most aggressive trade policies.
That key question hangs in the balance after a three-judge panel at the US Court of International Trade (CIT) sided in May with a group of small businesses that argued Trump lacked authority to impose his "Liberation Day" duties under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA).
Trump appealed that decision to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C., which has allowed Trump's tariffs to stay in force while it considers whether the president has the ultimate legal authority to impose the duties. Oral arguments are scheduled to start on July 31.
But now two toy companies that filed a separate tariff lawsuit against Trump — Learning Resources Inc. and hand2mind Inc. — have asked the Supreme Court to consider their case and put it on a fast track.
In recent terms, this court has allowed prompt review in cases of similarly (or less) far-reaching political and economic Importance.
All of the challengers to Trump's tariffs are arguing that the administration's basis for the duties — a national emergency caused by illegal immigration and flows of illegal drugs from overseas — was unauthorized because it did not directly address the stated emergency.
'Whether the President has authority to impose tariffs…is of such imperative importance that it warrants review now,' the toy companies said in their Tuesday filing to the Supreme Court.
The toy companies have already won a victory before US District Judge Rudolph Contreras in Washington but the decision was narrow in scope.
Trump appealed it and now the companies want to skip that battle and go directly to the nation's highest court.
The companies want the Supreme Court to decide on whether to take this case before its summer recess starts near the end of this month, setting up possible arguments in the fall.
They argue in their petition to the court that an analysis by JPMorgan shows the round of Trump tariffs at issue 'would hike taxes on Americans by $660 billion a year, the largest tax increase in recent memory by a longshot,' and 'cause prices to surge' by 'adding 2% to the Consumer Price Index.'
Since the beginning of the year, the tariff onslaught has caused 'the nation's overall average effective tariff rate' to jump from '2.5 percent' to 'around 27 percent'—more than a tenfold increase, and 'the highest for the U.S. in more than a century.'
Legal experts have long predicted that the legality of Trump's tariff justifications would eventually be taken up by the Supreme Court.
That could mean the Trump administration will have to grapple with the hurdle of the 'major questions doctrine,' which limits the authority of federal agencies to take action on issues of "vast economic and political significance" except where Congress has explicitly authorized the action.
Trump's legal team is looking to former President Nixon as proof that his global tariffs should be allowed to eventually stand in court.
Roughly five decades ago, 10% duties unilaterally imposed by the 37th president as part of a set of economic measures dubbed the "Nixon shock" were challenged in court in much the same way as Trump's 2025 tariffs have been.
And Nixon's duties also suffered an initial defeat.
What has emboldened the Trump administration is that the Nixon-era Justice Department eventually won its case on appeal, an outcome the Trump administration has cited in court documents, predicting that its legal saga would likely turn out the same way.
Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's stock prices
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Stock market today: Dow, S&P 500, Nasdaq futures fall amid uncertainty over whether US will join Israel's attack on Iran
US stock futures fell as investors braced for ongoing Israel-Iran hostilities that could draw in the US, along with the Federal Reserve's upcoming interest rate decision. Futures attached to the Dow Jones Industrial Average (YM=F), the benchmark S&P 500 (ES=F), and the tech-heavy Nasdaq 100 (NQ=F) slipped 0.3%. President Trump met with his national security team on Tuesday to discuss Israel and Iran, raising speculation that the US could join Israel's attack. The White House did not provide any details on the meeting, and the president spoke with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu afterward. Iran has reportedly readied missiles for strikes on US bases in the event the US takes action. Stocks fell during the day on Tuesday and oil jumped as Trump appeared to more directly align with Israel's aims in Iran, saying "our patience is wearing thin" and calling for "unconditional surrender" from Iran. Reports also circulated ahead of his national security meeting that the president is seriously considering joining Israel's strikes. The developments marked a dramatic shift from the day before, when Iran said that it wanted to reach a ceasefire and return to the negotiating table on its nuclear program. Read more: The latest on Trump's tariffs Prior to Israel's opening salvo on Iran Friday, Wall Street anticipated the Fed's next interest rate announcement would dominate market news this week. The central bank is due to reveal its decision on Wednesday at 2 p.m. ET, and analysts expect policymakers to hold rates steady. The Fed's "dot plot" and Fed Chair Jerome Powell's comments at a 2:30pm ET press conference will be in high focus as investors seek clues as to whether two rate cuts are still on the table this year. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data


New York Times
26 minutes ago
- New York Times
Federal Judge Certifies Class Action for Transgender People Seeking Passports
A federal judge in Boston granted class-action status to transgender and nonbinary Americans on Tuesday in a lawsuit challenging a U.S. State Department policy that requires passports to reflect only the holder's sex recorded on their original birth certificate. The order extends a preliminary injunction blocking the State Department from enforcing the policy against six plaintiffs to apply to all class members who apply for or update passports while the case proceeds. In the earlier order from April, U.S. District Judge Julia E. Kobick concluded that the passport policy likely violates the Fifth Amendment's equal protection guarantee because it discriminates based on sex and is 'rooted in irrational prejudice toward transgender Americans.' The State Department filed an appeal of the preliminary injunction last week. The government maintains that it has a strong interest in passports that accurately reflect the holder's sex. The State Department adopted the new policy earlier this year to comply with an executive order from President Trump directing all government agencies to limit official recognition of transgender identity and mandating that federal documents reflect what it termed the 'immutable biological classification as either male or female.' In court documents, plaintiffs argued that a mismatch between the sex listed on their passport and their gender identity puts them at risk of suspicion and hostility that other Americans do not face. During the first weeks of Mr. Trump's administration, several plaintiffs received passports with an 'F' or 'M' marker contrary to the one they had requested. Another learned that selecting an 'X' marker, indicating a nonbinary gender identity, was no longer an option, though it had been allowed since 2022. The government argued against certifying trans and nonbinary passport holders as a legal class in the case, contending that gender identity is subjective and that a class-wide injunction would create an undue administrative burden. Judge Kobick, who was nominated by former President Joseph R. Biden Jr., found that those claims did not outweigh significant harm faced by transgender and nonbinary passport holders. She noted that plaintiffs in the case had described being forced to 'effectively 'out' themselves every time they presented their passports,' leading to anxiety and fear safety fears. 'These are the types of injuries that cannot adequately be measured or compensated by money damages or a later-issued remedy,'' she wrote.


New York Post
27 minutes ago
- New York Post
White House condemns Jim Acosta after he jokes about Trump's dead ex-wife: ‘Disgraceful human being'
Ex-CNN correspondent Jim Acosta joked in an interview posted Monday about President Donald Trump's deceased former wife's burial site and called her an example of an immigrant 'doing the jobs that Americans don't want to do.' Acosta, speaking on a 'No Kings' Day episode of 'The Contrarian' podcast with Jennifer Rubin, blasted Trump not only for the ICE raids, but argued he is a hypocrite on the immigration issue because of his immigrant wives, including his late first wife Ivana. Advertisement 'Where are the ICE raids at the Trump properties? Could somebody call ICE on the Trump golf course in Virginia? You're telling me there's nobody in there that is undocumented or has some kind of squirreliness going on with their paperwork?' he asked in a clip flagged by reporter Jason Cohen. 'Give me a break.' 'How many immigrants has he married? He's got one buried at his golf course in New Jersey! Isn't she buried by the first hole or the second tee or something like that?' he asked, as Rubin and left-wing reporter April Ryan laughed. 'Immigrants always doing the jobs that Americans don't want to do!' he joked further. Advertisement 3 The White House condemned former CNN correspondent Jim Acosta after he make jokes about President Trump's deceased wife Ivana Trump on a YouTube show. The Contrarian/YouTube Ivana, who is the mother of the president's three eldest children, Donald Jr., Ivanka and Eric, is buried at Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, New Jersey. She died in 2022. Every morning, the NY POSTcast offers a deep dive into the headlines with the Post's signature mix of politics, business, pop culture, true crime and everything in between. Subscribe here! White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told Fox News Digital in response, 'Jim Acosta is a disgraceful human being.' Advertisement Acosta, who left CNN in January, covered the White House for the network during Trump's first term and became one of his fiercest critics, often mixing on-air editorializing with his reporting. He's maintained his stridently left-wing tone since going independent this year. 3 Acosta cracked that Ivana Trump is 'buried by the first hole or the second tee' at one of the president's golf course. 11.4.97 3 Ivana Trump's grave at Trump Bedminster Golf Club in New Jersey. DANIEL WILLIAM MCKNIGHT In recent weeks, Los Angeles, California, has become a powder keg of political controversy as US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) performs raids throughout the sanctuary city. Advertisement The Los Angeles Police Department has arrested a total of 575 individuals since the first weekend of protests, according to a media release. Authorities have battled protesters, hurling projectiles, setting fire to cars and launching fireworks at police officers in response to the ICE raids, with 10 members of law enforcement reporting injuries as of Monday, according to the LAPD. Fox News' Julia Bonavita contributed to this report.