Market watchers are nervously keeping an eye on the Supreme Court with bated breath as it weighs the consolidated cases challenging President Trump’s tariff authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. At stake is whether unelected judges will hamstring the executive branch’s ability to defend American industry and economic sovereignty.
If the Court upholds President Trump’s use of IEEPA to impose tariffs, it will rightly affirm broad presidential discretion in matters of national economic security—and it will put to rest any notion that the administration must reimburse importers who willingly paid tariffs.
The Supreme Court could take a different approach by granting Trump limited powers under the IEEPA while also stipulating that some repayments must be made. Many were anticipating a decision to be released on Friday, but they were left disappointed. The Court is expected to announce its next set of rulings on Wednesday.
Enjoying our conservative news and commentary? Make sure you tell your friends about us!
On Monday, Trump shared his concerns on Truth Social, warning about the potential consequences if the Supreme Court rules against his use of the IEEPA:
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) January 12, 2026
The actual numbers that we would have to pay back if, for any reason, the Supreme Court were to rule against the United States of America on Tariffs, would be many Hundreds of Billions of Dollars, and that doesn’t include the amount of “payback” that Countries and Companies would require for the Investments they are making on building Plants, Factories, and Equipment, for the purpose of being able to avoid the payment of Tariffs. When these Investments are added, we are talking about Trillions of Dollars! It would be a complete mess, and almost impossible for our Country to pay. Anybody who says that it can be quickly and easily done would be making a false, inaccurate, or totally misunderstood answer to this very large and complex question. It may not be possible but, if it were, it would be Dollars that would be so large that it would take many years to figure out what number we are talking about and even, who, when, and where, to pay. Remember, when America shines brightly, the World shines brightly. In other words, if the Supreme Court rules against the United States of America on this National Security bonanza, WE’RE SCREWED!
The plaintiffs in this lawsuit consist of a mix of small business entities, but the primary financial supporters behind this legal battle are largely conservative. Among them is Leonard Leo, a founding member of the Federalist Society and a key player in shaping Trump’s judicial appointments in the past. However, he is no longer part of Trump 47’s inner circle. Leo’s organizations, with backing from Donors Trust, have invested heavily in this effort aimed at undermining Trump’s tariffs.
Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent’s attitude regarding the potential ruling of the SCOTUS appeared to be somewhat pessimistic:
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent himself said Thursday he expects a “mishmash” ruling.
“What is not in doubt is our ability to continue collecting tariffs at roughly the same level, in terms of overall revenues,” Bessent said during an appearance in Minneapolis. “What is in doubt, and it’s a real shame for the American people, was the president loses flexibility to use tariffs both for national security, for negotiating leverage.”
The focus on National Security appears to be the driving force behind Trump’s wish to implement tariffs. On Monday, he used that power to levy tariffs against the Iranian regime:
#NOW TRUMP:
"Effective immediately, any Country doing business with the Islamic Republic of Iran will pay a Tariff of 25% on any and all business being done with the United States of America. pic.twitter.com/w5wyJFCRDw
— Conflict Radar (@Conflict_Radar) January 12, 2026
Some Cabinet members expressed a more hopeful outlook. National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett indicated that the administration had alternatives lined up in case the SCOTUS decision didn’t go their way:
National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett said Friday that the White House could deploy alternative measures if the Supreme Court rules against President Donald Trump’s use of emergency powers to impose sweeping levies.
“There was a big call last night with all the principals to talk about if the Supreme Court were to rule against this IEEPA tariff, what would the next step be?” Hassett said on CNBC’s “Squawk on the Street,” referring to the administration’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
“There are a lot of other legal authorities that can reproduce the deals that we’ve made with other countries, and can do so basically immediately. And so our expectation is that we’re going to win, and if we don’t win, then we know that we’ve got other tools that we could use that get us to the same place,” he said.
Hassett said U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer has been closely involved in mapping out contingency plans.
Trump has a proven knack for sparking debate and upending stale assumptions in foreign policy and international relations, and he struck political gold by pushing tariff policy as far and as forcefully as he has. Regardless of how the Supreme Court ultimately rules, the global conversation has already shifted: tariffs are no longer an academic concept, but a concrete tool of statecraft that foreign governments and multinational corporations must reckon with. The next step is for Trump to make the case at home—clearly and unapologetically—by explaining how this approach strengthens America’s hand abroad and, in the end, protects the bottom line of the average American worker and family.
