The oral arguments did not go well for Trump. He continues afterwards trying to intimidate the court. To me, the role of Chief Justice Roberts in handling this case will have immense impact on its outcome of it and on executive power.

.                                      …………………………………………………….

  The following is from CNBC’s initial assessment of the oral arguments — Trump may lose. “Supreme Court Skeptical of Trump’s Tariffs.“ CNBC (11.5.25).

Supreme Court justices on Wednesday morning expressed skepticism about the legality of aggressive tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump against most of the world’s nations. Conservative and liberal justices sharply questioned Solicitor General D. John Sauer on the Trump administration’s method for enacting the tariffs, which critics say infringes on the power of Congress to tax. Lower federal courts have ruled that Trump lacked the legal authority he cited under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose the so-called reciprocal tariffs on imports from many U.S. trading partners, and fentanyl tariffs on products from Canada, China and Mexico. Sauer, who is defending the tariff policy as grounded in the power to regulate foreign commerce, said “these are regulatory tariffs. They are not revenue-raising tariffs.” The fact that they raise revenue was only incidental,” Sauer said, shortly after oral arguments in the case began. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, one of the court’s three liberal members, told Sauer, “You say tariffs are not taxes, but that’s exactly what they.” “Generating money from American citizens, revenue,” Sotomayor said.

She later noted that no president other than Trump has ever used IEEPA to impose tariffs. Justice Neil Gorsuch, one of six conservatives on the court, pressed Sauer on the fact that Trump had unilaterally imposed the tariffs, citing purported international emergencies of trade imbalances and the flow of fentanyl into the United States, without Congress authorizing them. “Happens when the president simply vetoes legislation to take these powers back?” Gorsuch asked. “So Congress as a practical matter can’t get this power back once it’s handed it over to the president,” Gorsuch said. “It’s a one-way ratchet toward the gradual but continual accretion of power in the executive branch and away from the people’s elected representatives. “Other conservatives — Chief Justice John Roberts and the justices Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh and Samuel Alito — also pressed Sauer. The tariffs start at a baseline of 10% on many nations and spike to as high as 50% on goods from India and Brazil. The tariffs, if allowed to stand, would result in $3 trillion in extra revenue for the United States by 2035, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. That group last week said the federal government collected $151 billion from customs duties in the second half of fiscal year 2025, “a nearly 300% increase over the same period in” fiscal year 2024.

Katyal opened his argument by saying, “Tariffs are taxes,” picking up the theme that multiple justices had raised with Sauer. Our founders gave that taxing power to Congress alone.” “We don’t think IEEPA allows this junking of the world-wide tariff architecture,” Katyal later said. When Roberts asked Katyal is tariffs implicated the power of the president to conduct foreign policy for the United States, as Sauer argued, Katyal replied, “We agree that tariffs have foreign policy implications. “But he added that the Founding Fathers had delegated the power to tax to Congress in the Constitution. Katyal also pointed out that despite the argument that the reciprocal tariffs are being used to address trade deficits, Trump imposed a tariff of 39% on imports from Switzerland, an ally of the U.S., even though the U.S. runs a trade surplus with that nation. No other president has ever done something like that, he said. The Supreme Court, which heard more than two-and-a-half hours of arguments, will not issue a decision in the case on Wednesday. It is not clear when the court will release its ruling. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in a court filing in September that the U.S. might have to refund $750 billion or more if the Supreme Court ruled the tariffs are illegal and waited until next summer to issue that ruling. The case is seen as a key legal test for Trump, who has won some favorable rulings from the Supreme Court for other policies during his second term in the White House.

                                                           ………………………………………………..

“President Donald Trump’s administration is working behind the scenes on fallback options if the Supreme Court strikes down one of his major tariff authorities, looking to replace the levies as quickly as possible …. Both the Commerce Department and the Office of the US Trade Representative have studied Plan B options if the court rules against the administration.  Those include Section 301 and Section 122 of the Trade Act, which grant the president unilateral ability to impose duties …. The replacements come with risks — they tend to be either slower or more limited than the wide-ranging powers Trump has asserted so far and could face their own legal challenges …. In some cases, backup plans are already in motion. Trump has launched a 301 investigation against Brazil, for instance, and has 301 levies on some Chinese products from his first term. The provision typically requires a lengthy investigation before duties can be implemented …. Section 122 powers would let the president impose tariffs of 15% — but only for a maximum of 150 days … “Trump’s Tariffs Fallback.” Bloomberg (11.24.25).

“Trump has been bragging about how much money the tariffs will raise for the government, but “before the Supreme Court on Wednesday, his lawyer said something different. The tariffs were tools to achieve policy goals …. ‘The fact that they raise revenue,’ he said, ‘is only incidental.‘” “The difference was legally significant. If the Supreme Court finds that the tariffs are, at bottom, a kind of tax, it is likely to rule against them, since the Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the power to tax,” ….”If the justices agree that the tariffs are diplomatic tools, they may sustain them, as part of the president’s foreign policy prerogative.” “Trump’s Tariffs – Blunder in Brief?” New York Times (Nov. 9, 2025).

“I want to remind readers that while the decision will be enormously important in determining the extent of presidential authority, in the immediate case, the outcome will not make much difference. If Trump wins, the tariffs stay in place. If he loses, he will reimpose at least some of them using different statutes…. The two big issues are how much of its authority Congress can delegate to the executive and whether the authority delegated in this case constitutes a “major question” …. Two other topics took up some time. First was whether the IEEPA language “regulate . . . importation” includes tariffs. Plaintiffs contend it does not. The second concerned the revenue the tariffs are raising. Several justices pointed out that if they are raising revenue, then they are a tax, which only Congress has the authority to impose …. The prevailing view of observers was that justices across the spectrum indicated varying degrees of skepticism about the administration’s arguments. I agree with that, but don’t think it necessarily means a defeat for the president.” “Waiting for the Supreme Court.” CSIS (Nov. 10, 2025).

“Chief Justice John Roberts faces a defining challenge as he enters his third decade leading the Supreme Court: how far to let Donald Trump’s presidency rewrite the bounds of executive power ….  Still, in some areas, Roberts has been less aggressive than other conservative justices, and he has nurtured the reputation of an institutionalist: a judge who places value on consensus, stability in the legal system and building credibility with the public. That has been more difficult this year. Trump has been deliberately aggressive in challenging norms and boundaries. A flood of lawsuits have followed …. In last week’s case, Roberts appeared to lean against the administration’s arguments that Trump had the power to unilaterally impose tariffs with virtually every nation. But the arguments barely touched on the implications of ruling against the president. Not only are the economic consequences enormous—the government says it expects to have collected between $750 billion and $1 trillion in tariffs by next June—the political implications could be even greater. Trump has championed an aggressive tariff regime for decades; as president, he views import taxes as essential to remaking the U.S. economy. Taken together, the economic stakes and the president’s intense personal commitment to his tariffs almost make the case too big to lose.” “Chief Justice Roberts and Trump’s Tariffs.” Wall Street Journal (Nov. 10, 2025).

“So does the ruling matter at all? It could very well, and here’s how. The Supremes have generally been supine towards Trump, extending presidential immunity against prosecution being one particularly egregious example. Ruling against him on IEEPA will be quite a jolt, especially since Trump has made so much of the case including threatening to attend the hearing in person. The idea that tariffs are a bad idea in themselves is pretty solidly lodged with the public and particularly with businesses. Being declared illegal won’t improve their image. Even CEOs who generally don’t dare speak out against Trump economic policy are prepared to diss them.” “Political Risk for Trump and Tariff Case.” Financial Times (Nov. 11, 2025).

“Trump claims tariff ‘unwind’ would cost $3 trillion — In a Truth Social post, Trump contended that the “U.S. Supreme Court was given the wrong numbers” in the tariffs case and that “the U.S. would be on the hook for $3 trillion in refunds and lost investments if the administration loses” …. “That would truly become an insurmountable National Security Event, and devastating to the future of our Country.”  Scotus Blog (Nov. 12, 2025).