A surprising coalition of Supreme Court justices appears to be forming against President Donald Trump’s global tariff authority, according to recent analysis.
On Wednesday, the Court heard arguments over whether Trump can use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to issue broad “reciprocal tariffs” aimed at combating fentanyl trafficking.
The hearing included several damaging concessions from the administration. Government attorneys acknowledged that, under their interpretation, a future president could declare a climate emergency and prohibit imports of gasoline-powered vehicles. They also admitted U.S. consumers are bearing some tariff costs — despite Trump repeatedly promoting the revenue benefits of the duties.
Justice Neil Gorsuch sounded alarmed that the administration’s argument could lead to a “one-way ratchet,” concentrating power in the executive branch at the expense of congressional oversight.
Analysts Predict a Strong Majority Against the Tariffs
James Lucier, cofounder of Capital Alpha Partners, released a note Thursday with predictions on how the justices may vote. He expects conservative Amy Coney Barrett to join Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson in opposing Trump’s tariff approach.
Lucier further suggested that the Court’s most conservative members — Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Gorsuch — may also reject the administration’s position.
Meanwhile, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh appear unlikely to fully support the tariffs either, creating the possibility of a decisive 7–2 ruling against Trump — even though he appointed Gorsuch, Barrett, and Kavanaugh.
Even in a narrower decision with Alito and Thomas siding with the administration, the Court could still rule against Trump on a 5–4 basis.
Lucier noted that while Thomas and Alito often support strong executive power, the separation-of-powers issues here may give them “grave reservations” about endorsing Trump’s expansive use of IEEPA.
Trump Warns of Economic Decline — but Trade Battles Will Continue
Trump has issued stark warnings about the potential fallout of a defeat, claiming the United States could become “defenseless” and risk “Third World status.”
However, a Supreme Court loss would not end his broader tariff policies. Other trade duties — including those tied to national security claims affecting steel, aluminum, and autos — were imposed under different laws and are not part of the current case.
Christopher Hodge, chief U.S. economist at Natixis CIB Americas, wrote that Trump still has “several other legal tools” to maintain tariff pressure, citing the Trade Expansion Act, Trade Act, and Tariff Act. These options are more cumbersome and offer less flexibility but can still produce steep trade barriers.
With longer procedures required for those measures, he believes more trade negotiations could emerge in the year ahead.
Hodge expects trade tensions to remain a central feature of Trump’s presidency, saying the uncertainty “will likely have significant implications on growth prospects.”
