Trump pauses new trade deal till SC settles tariff case

 

·         SCOTUS (US SC) may not ban chaotic Trump tariffs outright, as it will cause more chaos, but may allow it with certain modifications

·         Most of the SC judges, including Trump appointees, are now voicing concern over Trump's bellicose tariff policies

·         Trump's body language is showing he is not comfortable with SCOTUS language and thus bound to blink

·         Overall, Trump may be quite right in his tariff narrative, but using it as a tool to score geopolitical issues in line with his morning mood

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on November 5, 2025, in a landmark case challenging President Trump's authority to impose sweeping global tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977. The case consolidates challenges from small businesses (e.g., Learning Resources and hand2mind) and a coalition of states, following lower court rulings that struck down the tariffs as an overreach of presidential power. No decision has been issued yet; the US Supreme Court typically takes weeks to months for opinions, with a potential ruling expected by early 2026.

Key Details of the Tariff Case

Legal Basis of the Challenge: Challengers argue that IEEPA, which allows the president to "regulate... importation" during declared national emergencies, does not authorize tariffs—a form of taxation reserved for Congress under the Constitution. They cite the non-delegation doctrine (limiting Congress's transfer of legislative power to the executive) and the major questions doctrine (requiring clear congressional authorization for significant actions). Tariffs have generated $151 billion in the second half of fiscal year 2025 alone, a 300% increase from the prior year, but critics say it may be equivalent to a $1,200–$1,600 annual tax hike per U.S. household.

Trump Administration's Defense: Solicitor General D. John Sauer contended that "regulate importation" inherently includes tariffs, especially for national security threats like trade imbalances and fentanyl inflows. The administration invoked emergencies under IEEPA for "reciprocal" tariffs (mirroring foreign duties) on imports from nearly all countries, including allies like Canada, Mexico, China, and Switzerland. They warn that invalidation could require $750 billion+ in refunds, risking economic chaos akin to the Great Depression, and argue courts lack jurisdiction over foreign policy decisions.

Scope of Tariffs: These affect virtually all imports, with rates up to 39% on some goods. Unlike prior statutes (e.g., Section 232 for steel/aluminum), IEEPA has never been used this way in its 50-year history. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent attended arguments and stated the administration could pivot to other laws if needed.

Highlights from Oral Arguments

The 2.5-hour session revealed bipartisan skepticism, even from Trump-appointed conservative justices (Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett), putting the administration on the defensive:

·         Chief Justice John Roberts: Noted IEEPA's silence on tariffs and that Congress explicitly authorized them elsewhere but not here, questioning if this was an "unlimited delegation" of power

·         Justice Sonia Sotomayor Emphasized Congress's constitutional taxing authority, refocusing on the separation of powers.

·         Justice Brett Kavanaugh: Referenced historical precedent (Nixon's 1970s tariffs under a similar law) but probed limits on emergency powers.

·         Justice Amy Coney Barrett: Asked about refund logistics if tariffs are struck down, highlighting practical chaos.

·         Justice Samuel Alito suggested the Court might preemptively address refunds to avoid broader disruption.

·         Liberal Justices (Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson): Pushed on overbroad emergency declarations, calling them a "complete mess."

·         Attorney Neal Katyal (for challengers) stressed no prior president used IEEPA for tariffs and highlighted inconsistencies, like 39% duties on surplus-trading Switzerland. Sauer faced tough grilling, with justices doubting the "national security" rationale for economic policy.

Post-arguments, small business owners protested outside the Court, and coverage described a "frosty reception" and "high-fire grill" for the administration. Trump called the case "LIFE OR DEATH" for the economy on November 5.

Potential Outcomes and Implications

·         If Upheld: Tariffs remain, bolstering Trump's trade agenda but risking inflation and retaliation (e.g., China recently lifted farm tariffs in response to U.S. concessions).

·         If Struck Down: Many 2025 tariffs could be invalidated, requiring refunds (potentially limited to case parties initially). The administration vows to reimpose via alternatives like Section 201 of the Trade Act. Broader impact: Curbs executive overreach, echoing recent rulings against Biden-era policies

·         Economic Stakes: Tariffs have disrupted supply chains, spooked markets, and drawn international criticism, but supporters credit them with trade deals and revenue.

Scott Bessent's Comments on the Trump Tariffs Supreme Court Case

As U.S. Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent has been a vocal defender of President Trump's tariff policies throughout the lead-up to and aftermath of the November 5, 2025, Supreme Court oral arguments. He attended the hearing in person alongside Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, emphasizing the administration's commitment to the case.

Pre-Hearing Comments (November 2–4, 2025)

Bessent framed the tariffs as essential for addressing trade imbalances and threats like fentanyl inflows and China's rare earth export restrictions, while downplaying concerns about judicial intimidation.

·         On attending the arguments: "I’m actually going to go and sit, hopefully in the front row, and have a ringside seat." He described his presence as underscoring the urgency: "I am there to emphasize that this is an economic emergency. National security is economic security. Economic security is national security."

·         On the case's importance: "Tariffs are a matter of national security and this is one of the President's signature policies—and it would be very unusual for the Supreme Court to overrule a President's signature policy." He drew parallels to judicial deference in cases like Obamacare, arguing the Court is unlikely to intervene in executive trade authority.

·         Contingency plans if the tariffs are struck down: "We have lots of options" to reimpose duties, citing alternatives like Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (national security tariffs), Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (unfair trade practices), Section 122 of the Trade Act (15% tariffs for 150 days to address imbalances), and Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (up to 50% on discriminatory countries). He stressed continuity: "If it strikes down the tariffs, the administration will simply switch to other tariff authorities."

·         Justification for tariffs: Highlighted China's recent rare earth curbs as a direct threat to U.S. industries and technologies, crediting tariffs for progress on fentanyl and trade deals. For countries with new agreements, he urged: "You should honor your agreement."

Post-Hearing Comments (November 5, 2025)

Emerging from the Court, Bessent expressed strong confidence in an administration victory, critiquing the challengers' arguments as economically flawed.

·         Overall assessment: "I came away feeling very, very optimistic." He praised Solicitor General John Sauer's performance: "The Solicitor General made a very powerful case for the need for the president to have the IEEPA powers," adding that opponents "almost embarrassed themselves" and "fell flat on their face."

·         On challengers' arguments: He mocked claims that IEEPA allows embargoes or quotas (which affect revenue) but not tariffs: "Showing their dramatic lack of economic understanding... What embarrassing statements to make in front of SCOTUS." Specifically, he called Oregon Solicitor General Benjamin Gutman's position—that IEEPA permits full embargoes but not a 1% tariff—"bordering on the absurd."

·         On potential refunds: If the Court rules against the tariffs (requiring repayment of $151 billion+ collected in FY2025), "We'll cross that bridge if we come to it, but I'm confident we won't have to." He downplayed revenue as a "shrinking ice cube" that's "coincident" to the policy's goals.

·         Broader implications: Reiterated fallback options to maintain tariffs, ensuring no disruption to Trump's agenda. He viewed the hearing as affirming executive power: "This isn’t about trade. It’s about whether a President can defend the country without asking permission from a broken Congress."

The US Treasury Secretary Bessent:

·         I came away from the Supreme Court hearing on tariffs very optimistic

·         It would be unusual for the Supreme Court to overrule tariffs

·         Lots of other authorities can be used, depending on the Supreme Court decision

·         Nvidia Blackwell chips are the crown jewel

·         I think Trump is the only leader China’s President Xi respects

·         Could sell Blackwell to China once they're outdated; maybe it'll be the case for Blackwell chips to go to China down the road.

·         Trump and China’s President Xi may see each other at G-20 or APEC next year.

Bessent's tone has been consistently bullish, positioning the tariffs as non-negotiable for U.S. security and dismissing legal hurdles as surmountable. His post-hearing optimism contrasts with reports of justices' skepticism, suggesting the administration anticipates a favorable ruling or quick pivot. A decision could come in weeks to months, potentially by early 2026.

Howard Lutnick's Comments on the Trump Tariffs Supreme Court Case

As U.S. Commerce Secretary, Howard Lutnick attended the November 5, 2025, Supreme Court oral arguments alongside Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, underscoring the administration's high stakes in defending President Trump's tariff authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Lutnick, a longtime Trump ally and former CEO of Cantor Fitzgerald, has been a staunch proponent of the tariffs, viewing them as vital for protecting American manufacturing and countering foreign trade imbalances. His post-hearing remarks, delivered primarily in a Newsmax interview on the evening of November 5, exuded confidence despite widespread reports of judicial skepticism.

Post-Hearing Comments (November 5, 2025)

Lutnick emerged from the courtroom optimistic, dismissing concerns about the justices' probing questions and predicting a clear win for the administration. He emphasized the tariffs' role in national security and economic leverage.

·         Prediction of victory: "Trump is gonna win this case... These judges are going to side with Donald Trump." He described the arguments as a "rough day" for media portrayals but insisted the Court's deference to executive foreign policy powers would prevail, calling any contrary ruling "silly."

·         On the justices' skepticism: Lutnick downplayed tough exchanges with conservative justices like Gorsuch and Roberts, arguing they reflected "nerding out on legal theory" rather than substantive doubts. He highlighted the administration's focus on real-world threats: "This isn't abstract—it's about China holding our supply chains hostage with rare earths and fentanyl pouring in. The Court gets that presidents need tools to fight back."

·         Tariffs as national security: "Tariffs aren't just taxes; they're weapons in trade wars. Without them, we're handing our steel and auto industries to cheaters abroad. IEEPA gives the president the flexibility Congress intended—no micromanaging from a gridlocked Hill."

·         Contingency if struck down: Echoing Bessent, Lutnick affirmed fallback options like Section 232 (national security) and Section 301 (unfair practices) tariffs: "We'll pivot seamlessly. The policy stays; only the paperwork changes. No chaos, just continuity for America's workers."

·         Broader economic defense: He mocked challengers' economic critiques, noting tariffs had already spurred deals with allies: "Look at the revenue—$151 billion—and the jobs saved. Critics ignore how this levels the playing field. If the Court rules our way, it's a green light for fair trade; if not, we adapt and win bigger."

Pre-Hearing Teasers (Context from November 4–5, 2025)

Lutnick's attendance was previewed as a show of force, with him telling reporters: "I'm there because this is about defending American jobs, not some lawyerly debate. The justices will see the emergency for what it is."

Lutnick's bullish tone aligns with the administration's narrative, contrasting media analyses of a "frosty" reception from the bench. He has no public posts on X (formerly Twitter) immediately post-hearing, but his Newsmax appearance dominated coverage. Like Bessent, he frames the case as a test of presidential prerogative over congressional inertia. A ruling is anticipated in early 2026, with Lutnick vowing to "keep fighting for U.S. dominance" regardless.

Jamieson Greer's Comments on the Trump Tariffs Supreme Court Case

As U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), Jamieson Greer played a central role in the Trump administration's defense of the tariffs during the November 5, 2025, Supreme Court oral arguments, arguing on behalf of the government alongside Solicitor General D. John Sauer. A former trade litigator and Trump first-term official, Greer has long advocated for aggressive use of executive trade tools to combat unfair practices. He attended the hearing with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. His post-hearing comments, shared in a Fox Business interview and brief remarks to reporters outside the Court on November 5, struck a measured yet confident tone, focusing on the legal merits and policy imperatives while acknowledging the justices' rigorous questioning.

Post-Hearing Comments (November 5, 2025)

Greer described the arguments as a "vigorous debate on constitutional lines" but remained upbeat about the administration's position, emphasizing IEEPA's broad grant of authority and the real-world stakes of trade threats.

·         Assessment of the hearing: "It was a thorough airing of the issues, with sharp questions from the bench that tested our case—but that's what the Supreme Court does. We presented a strong textual and historical argument for why IEEPA encompasses tariffs as a core regulatory tool for imports during emergencies." He noted the challengers' inconsistencies, particularly on how IEEPA could block all trade but not impose duties: "Their position strains logic and ignores the statute's purpose to give the president flexible powers in crises."

·         On justices' concerns: Addressing skepticism from figures like Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh on delegation limits, Greer said: "The Court grappled with separation of powers, as expected, but our brief shows Congress deliberately empowered the executive here for national security—unlike in other trade laws where it specified otherwise. Precedents like the steel tariffs under Section 232 affirm this flexibility."

·         National security and economic rationale: "These tariffs aren't punitive; they're defensive against existential threats—fentanyl killing our citizens, China weaponizing supply chains, and chronic deficits hollowing out manufacturing. Invalidating them would tie the president's hands in future emergencies, from pandemics to cyber threats."

·         Fallback strategies: Aligning with Bessent and Lutnick, Greer confirmed robust alternatives: "The president has multiple statutory levers—Sections 232, 301, and others—to sustain these policies if needed. This case is about affirming IEEPA, but our trade agenda marches on regardless."

·         On refunds and broader impact: Downplaying doomsday scenarios, he stated, "Refunds would be a logistical issue, but we're focused on the merits. A win here strengthens U.S. leverage globally; challengers' victory would invite more foreign exploitation."

Pre-Hearing Context (November 4, 2025)

In a pre-argument briefing, Greer previewed the defense: "IEEPA's text is clear—'regulate importation' includes tariffs, as every administration has understood. This is about protecting America, not rewriting the law."

Greer's professional demeanor—less bombastic than Lutnick's—complements the administration's united front, with his legal expertise lending credibility. No immediate X posts from him followed the hearing, but his Fox appearance garnered praise from trade hawks. Like his colleagues, he anticipates a favorable ruling by early 2026, framing the case as a pivotal affirmation of executive trade authority amid congressional dysfunction.

Trump's Comments on the Supreme Court Tariffs Case

President Trump, who did not attend the November 5, 2025, Supreme Court oral arguments on his tariff authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), has framed the case as a high-stakes battle for U.S. economic survival. His remarks, delivered via Truth Social posts and a brief statement to reporters at the White House on November 5, underscore the tariffs' centrality to his agenda while downplaying judicial hurdles. Trump has been vocal in the days leading up to the hearing, portraying the challengers—small businesses and states—as threats to American workers.

Post-Hearing Comments (November 5–6, 2025)

Trump's most dramatic statement came in a Truth Social post shortly after the arguments concluded, amplifying the administration's defensive posture amid reports of justices' skepticism.

·         On the case's stakes: "The Radical Left and their puppets in the Courts are trying to DESTROY our Economy with this WITCH HUNT on Tariffs. This is LIFE OR DEATH for America—jobs, security, everything! The Supreme Court MUST protect our great workers from foreign cheaters. NO REFUNDS, NO SURRENDER! #MAGA" He reiterated this in a Fox News interview that evening: "It's not just about tariffs; it's about whether we let China and others keep ripping us off. The justices know it—it's life or death for our country.

·         On judicial skepticism: Addressing leaks of tough questioning from conservative justices like Roberts and Gorsuch, Trump dismissed them as "fake news spin": "The Court is FAIR and SMART—they see through the hoax. My team crushed it today. If they rule wrong, we'll fight back BIGGER." He avoided specifics on the bench but praised Solicitor General John Sauer: "John was a KILLER—total winner!"

·         On potential refunds: Trump echoed Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent's contingency plans but vowed resistance: "If some activist judge wants to give billions back to importers who hate America, over my dead body. We'll use every tool—232, 301, whatever it takes. Tariffs STAY!"

Pre-Hearing Comments (November 4–5, 2025)

Trump ramped up rhetoric in the lead-up, using the platform to rally support and preview the national security angle.

·         On attending the hearing: Uncharacteristically deferential, he told reporters on November 4: "It's not about me—it's about the American people and our future. I'll let the lawyers handle the show, but everyone knows these tariffs are SAVING us from disaster." This marked a rare hands-off approach, contrasting his first-term courtroom cameos.

·         Broader defense of tariffs: In a November 5 morning Truth Social thread: "Tariffs brought in RECORD billions—$151B this year alone—while forcing BAD deals with China and Mexico to CRUMBLE. Without them, fentanyl floods in, factories close, we LOSE. The SCOTUS case is a TEST: Do we fight for USA or bow to globalists?"

Trump's tone remains combative and optimistic, aligning with Bessent, Lutnick, and USTR Jamieson Greer's post-hearing confidence, though his "life or death" hyperbole highlights internal administration tensions over refund risks. No new comments emerged by November 6 afternoon, but he teased a Mar-a-Lago address on trade for the weekend. A ruling could arrive in early 2026, with Trump poised to leverage any outcome for his 2026 midterm push. Trump is openly maintaining a double-standard approach on tariffs; basically, Trump is a known anti-globalist on the overall Tariff & Trade wars agenda, but recently turned globalist after China allegedly restricted Rare Earth Materials (REMs) even for civilian usage. Trump has almost declared himself as the de facto President of all Democratic countries in the world against autocracies led by China. Trump said he has ensured no REMs curb for not only America, but also for the whole world (democracies).

On November 6, 2025, Trump said:

Trump Says No New Tariffs While Supreme Court Case Pending, Alternative Plans in Place: President Trump said if the Supreme Court ruling on tariffs is unfavorable, the administration will prepare a second plan, noting alternative options exist but are progressing slowly. He added that there will be no new tariff announcements while the case is pending, emphasizing that no measures will be introduced until the court's decision is clear.

Trump said:

·         No new tariff announcements are coming; I won't announce tariffs while the SCOTUS case is pending.

·         We will need a game two plan if the Supreme Court case on tariffs doesn't go well. We can do other things, but they're slow by comparison.

·         It would be devastating if the Supreme Court ruled against tariffs.

·         Many widely used drugs are to be sold at a 60% discount.

·         Americans should pay the lowest global prices for drugs.

·         Talks with India are going well; Modi is great; they have largely stopped buying Russian oil.

·         We'll figure out the trip to India; it could be next year.

Conclusions

The Tariff case tests presidential power in foreign affairs versus congressional authority, with conservatives in a bind over free-market principles. But considering all the practicalities, political pressure of the Trump administration on the judiciary, eventually the US SC may allow Trump tariffs as one-time exceptions with some modifications and Congressional approval. If the US SC disallows Trump tariffs under IEEPA, it may cause more uncertainty and chaos; the Trump admin may also take another trade section (201). Even after Trump/Republicans, any subsequent government led by Democrats may also continue the Trump tariffs regime in an effort to bring back manufacturing to the US soil, at least for US consumers. The US SC may allow Trump to continue the modified tariffs policy without using the IEEPA provisions. In the longer run, after onshoring some vital manufacturing back to the US soil to de-risk itself from China, the US may impose 10% basic tariffs along with 15% Federal GST (with 50% share with States) to align with the rest of the G20 countries.

Technical outlook: DJ-30, NQ-100, SPX-500 and Gold

Looking ahead, whatever may be the narrative, technically Dow Future (CMP: 47700) now has to sustain over 48000 for a further rally to 48300* and 48600/49000-49700/50000 in the coming days; otherwise sustaining below 47900-47700, DJ-30 may fall to 47200/47000-46500/46200 and further 45500/44950-44500/44200 and 43500 in the coming days.

Similarly, NQ-100 Future (25800) now has to sustain over 26100 for a further rally to 26200-26500 in the coming days; otherwise, sustaining below 25750, NQ-100 may fall to 25300/25000-24700/24500-24300/24300 and 23700/23400/23000 and 22600/22400 in the coming days.

Looking at the chart, technically SPX-500 (CMP: 6880) now has to sustain over 7050-7100 for a further rally to 7200/7300-7500/8300 in the coming days; otherwise, sustaining below 7025/6900-6800/6750, may fall to 6650/6595 and 6490/6450-6375/6300-6250/6200 and further fall to 6080 in the coming days.

Looking at the chart, Technically Gold (CMP: $4025) has to sustain over 4060-4125 for a further recovery to 4395-4405 for 4425/4455-4475/4500 to 4555-4575 and even 5000 zone in the coming days; otherwise sustaining below 4050-3875, Gold may again fall to 3770 and 3700/3600-3500/3450 and 3350 levels in the coming weeks.