Trump's chances of winning his tariff case drop as Supreme Court hears arguments

By Victor Reklaitis

Conservative justices hit the president's attorney with tough questions

Demonstrators protest Wednesday outside the U.S. Supreme Court's building in Washington, as the court hears arguments on whether a wide swath of President Donald Trump's tariffs are lawful.

The likelihood of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in favor of President Donald Trump in a crucial tariff case has dropped in the wake of oral arguments Wednesday over the matter, as some conservative justices' questions for Trump's attorney were viewed as especially skeptical.

One betting market, Kalshi, recently was giving a 27% chance for such a ruling, down from about 45% just before the arguments started around 10 a.m. Eastern time - and after falling to a new low of around 20% during the arguments. Polymarket recently put the chances at 32%, down from 40% before the arguments and after briefly sliding to a fresh low of 18% during the hearing.

The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, is expected to rule in a matter of weeks after lower courts found that Trump exceeded his authority in using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 to justify his many country-specific tariffs. Opponents of Trump's IEEPA-based tariffs have emphasized that the law doesn't explicitly mention tariffs in its text, and that no president has ever used IEEPA to impose tariffs.

Ahead of Wednesday's arguments, there had been expectations that the Supreme Court's three liberal justices - Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor - were likely to rule against Trump, while three conservative justices - Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas - were viewed as likely to vote in favor of upholding the president's tariffs. That leaves three other conservative jurists - Chief Justice John Roberts, plus justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh - looking like the swing votes in the case to get to a majority of five or more.

So Barrett's tough questions for the Trump administration's advocate, U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer, stood out. She asked: "Can you point to any other place in the code, or any other time in history, where that phrase 'together regulate importation' has been used to confer tariff-imposing authority?" Sauer struggled to answer her question in a succinct fashion.

Roberts also sounded skeptical, including on Sauer's claim that the "major questions doctrine" didn't apply in this case. The major questions doctrine is the idea that a government agency can't decide on an issue of vast economic and political significance unless Congress has explicitly authorized the agency to do so.

"So why doesn't it apply again?" the chief justice asked. Roberts said the Trump administration is claiming "a power to impose tariffs on any product from any country in any amount for any length of time," adding that "it does seem like that's major authority."

In addition, Gorsuch had sharp exchanges with the solicitor general. At one point, the justice talked about a "a one-way ratchet toward the gradual but continual accretion of power in the executive branch and away from the people's elected representatives."

Now read: What's at stake for markets as the Supreme Court hears Trump's tariff arguments

-Victor Reklaitis

This content was created by MarketWatch, which is operated by Dow Jones & Co. MarketWatch is published independently from Dow Jones Newswires and The Wall Street Journal.

(END) Dow Jones Newswires

11-05-25 1309ET