(Universal News Network)—Republican lawmakers are quietly hoping that the U.S. Supreme Court will intervene in President Trump’s ongoing trade war, which has increasingly become a political burden for the GOP. Even though the president has suspended many of his tariffs, the trade dispute continues to be a contentious issue.
While the Supreme Court has generally ruled in favor of Trump in several cases during his first few months in office, it dealt the administration a setback last week by ruling that it must facilitate the return of a Maryland man who had been wrongfully deported to El Salvador.
Trump’s broad “reciprocal” tariffs, which affect over 180 countries, now face new legal challenges. Several businesses have filed lawsuits against the administration in both the U.S. Court of International Trade and a federal district court in Florida.
At present, most of these tariffs are on hold for a 90-day period to allow affected countries to negotiate with the Trump administration. However, China remains a major exception, with tariffs on many Chinese goods now reaching as high as 145 percent.
Some Republican lawmakers, who privately oppose Trump’s tariffs but are reluctant to publicly criticize the president, are hopeful that the Supreme Court will eventually limit the president’s tariff powers.
“Members would love to have the courts bail them out and basically step in and assert the authority under the Constitution that taxes are supposed to originate in the House of Representatives,” said Brian Darling, a GOP strategist and former Senate GOP aide.
“Senators and House members would like the courts to give them some cover, because I’m sure many of them are nervous about getting reelected if these tariffs last for a long time. They’re looking at the poll numbers and see that tariffs are not popular,” Darling explained.
He added, “They’re not going to be outwardly opposing the president, because that comes with a huge downside.”
Jeffrey M. Schwab, senior counsel for the Liberty Justice Center, which has filed a lawsuit challenging Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs on behalf of U.S. businesses that import goods from countries targeted by the tariffs, said the case is likely to reach the Supreme Court unless Trump reverses course.
“IEEPA [the International Emergency Economic Powers Act] just doesn’t authorize this action to impose these tariffs, and even if IEEPA does authorize some tariffs, which is a question that I think is questionable, they certainly authorize worldwide, across-the-board tariffs,” Schwab stated in an interview with The Hill.
Schwab continued by questioning the Trump administration’s rationale for imposing such sweeping tariffs, saying that using trade deficits as a justification for the tariffs does not meet the standards of an unusual or extraordinary emergency.
“The trade deficit is not an emergency. It’s not unusual nor is it extraordinary. Even if you accept that IEEPA could authorize the president’s tariffs as a general rule, it doesn’t authorize them under the justification they gave,” Schwab argued.
Schwab, who is leading the case, emphasized the urgency of moving the case forward due to the potentially wide-reaching consequences of the tariffs.
“It’s certainly the kind of case that the Supreme Court would be interested in because the consequences are so far-reaching and you’d want an authoritative decision on it. You definitely don’t want a circuit split on it,” Schwab said.
“We’re going to try to move it quickly,” he added, explaining that his team plans to seek a preliminary injunction against the “reciprocal” tariffs within the week.
The New Civil Liberties Alliance, a conservative legal group, has also filed a separate lawsuit in Florida to block Trump’s tariffs on China. Andrew Morris, senior litigation counsel for the group, argued that the tariffs are a violation of the Constitution, particularly undermining Congress’s exclusive authority to regulate taxes.
“Trump’s tariffs against China have usurped Congress’s right to control tariffs, and upset the Constitution’s separation of powers,” Morris said.
Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has expressed concerns about the constitutional validity of the tariffs, emphasizing that tariffs are essentially taxes imposed on American consumers. He pointed out that the Constitution explicitly grants Congress, not the executive branch, the power to levy taxes.
“The Constitution says taxes originate to Congress,” Paul stated. “That to me isn’t a pointless argument. It’s an incredibly important argument, whether taxes can be levied under one person.”
Paul also highlighted that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which was designed for use in emergencies, makes no reference to tariffs.
“There are many people who believe that the power under IEEPA doesn’t even exist. So Congress needs to grow a spine, and Congress needs to stand up for its prerogatives regardless of party, regardless even of the economic issue,” Paul said.
“The Constitution gives Congress the authority to regulate interstate and foreign commerce,” Paul continued. “Should we be a country ruled by emergency edict or are we going to be a country ruled by the democratic actions and voting of Congress? I think it’s incredibly important.”
In light of these concerns, Paul is co-sponsoring a resolution with Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) to roll back Trump’s “reciprocal” tariffs. The pair plans to bring the resolution to the Senate floor for a vote after the two-week Easter recess.
Some of Trump’s most ardent supporters, such as Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), have also expressed reservations about the tariffs, particularly their impact on American consumers. Cruz called tariffs “a tax,” and noted, “I’m not a fan of raising taxes on millions of American consumers.”
Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) questioned the Trump administration’s long-term strategy for the trade war, cautioning that tariffs are “a double-edged sword” and a “pretty blunt instrument.” Johnson, who had previously kept his concerns about the tariffs subdued, expressed skepticism about their effectiveness.
Four Republicans, including Senators Rand Paul, Susan Collins (Maine), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), and Mitch McConnell (Ky.), voted earlier this month to undo Trump’s 25 percent tariff on Canada. Although the Senate passed the resolution by a 51-48 vote, it is unlikely to be taken up in the House.
“If the courts run interference on any of Trump’s tariffs, that plays well for Republicans on Capitol Hill that don’t agree with them,” said a second Republican strategist who requested anonymity. This strategist explained that many GOP lawmakers believe Trump’s decision to impose hefty tariffs on Mexico and Canada, two of America’s largest trading partners, was too aggressive.
“The concern is pretty broad,” the strategist added, noting that many Republicans are particularly worried about the potential consequences for their reelection prospects if the economy suffers a downturn.
The strategist also predicted that the Supreme Court would likely get involved, with some tariffs potentially being struck down. “Some of them could get struck down when they get to the Supreme Court,” the strategist added.
In response to concerns about the long-term impact of the tariffs, seven Senate Republicans have co-sponsored the Trade Review Act of 2025, spearheaded by Senators Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.). This legislation would require that new tariffs or tariff increases expire after 60 days unless Congress passes a joint resolution of approval, allowing Congress to more easily remove tariffs.
“Congress needs to assert its prerogative over tariffs,” Grassley said, underscoring the importance of maintaining a balance of power.
While the Trade Review Act is still in its early stages, it reflects growing Republican discontent with the current state of the trade war. Several Republican senators have voiced their concerns, fearing that Trump’s tariffs could become a permanent fixture unless the courts intervene or Congress takes action.
“There are a lot of people who don’t like the tariffs,” a Senate aide explained. “It’s an issue that splits our party.”