Lawyers for US President Donald Trump faced sharp questions from Supreme Court justices on Wednesday. The judges examined the legality of the tariffs Trump introduced earlier this year, The New York Times reported.

The questioning was not entirely skeptical, but it showed a shift from the court’s earlier stance. The same court had previously allowed more than 20 emergency orders from Trump’s administration. This time, it handled the tariff issue through full hearings and fast-tracked arguments, suggesting that a major ruling is coming.

The judgment will likely define the limits of presidential powers. Reports said several of the six Republican-appointed justices appeared uneasy with the administration’s reasoning.

What Can Congress Authorize?

The main question before the court was how specific Congress must be when giving powers to the president. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asked, “The statute doesn’t use the word ‘tariffs,’” referring to the law Trump relied on.

The administration argued that the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) gave Trump authority to impose a broad tariff program. But the law does not include words such as “tariffs,” “duties,” “customs,” “taxes,” or “imposts.”

Roberts and other justices questioned whether the law could allow tariffs if it never mentioned them. They also noted that no US president in nearly 50 years had used the law to impose tariffs.

Justices Press for Clear Answers

Justice Amy Coney Barrett pressed the government’s lawyer, asking, “General Sauer, can I just ask you a question? 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?”

Solicitor General D. John Sauer replied that the law allowed the president to regulate importation. He said those words were enough to justify Trump’s tariff actions, even without the word “tariffs.”

Sauer referred to the earlier version of the 1977 law but could not point to any other statute where “regulating imports” meant “imposing tariffs.” This gap may prove crucial. Conservative justices, known for their strict reading of laws, might see the absence of specific wording as a major weakness in Trump’s case.