The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on whether President Donald Trump had the authority to impose tariffs using the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). This case, formally known as Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, questions the legality of Trump's broad use of emergency powers to declare economic crises and impose tariffs on countries, a move challenged by small business groups and several states. Legal experts are divided, with projections indicating a 50-65% chance the court may side with lower courts and rule that the president lacks this authority. The case's outcome could significantly impact the use of emergency powers, potentially limiting presidential authority to bypass Congress for tariffs. Trump has relied on multiple laws, including Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, and Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, to impose tariffs for reasons ranging from trade deficits to national security. Despite the legal challenges, Trump continues to use tariffs as a key economic tool, with some experts warning that the court's decision could reshape how emergency powers are used in governance. The case also raises constitutional questions about whether Congress, not the president, should have the authority to issue tariffs, especially given the broad economic and political significance of such actions. Several lower courts have already questioned the legality of Trump's tariffs under the major questions doctrine, which requires clear congressional authorization for actions of significant impact. Market reactions remain uncertain, but there is concern that a ruling against Trump could lead to the refunding of over $100 billion in tariff collections and disrupt ongoing trade negotiations, including those with China, Canada, and Mexico. The tariffs have been a central part of Trump's trade strategy, aimed at reducing trade deficits and gaining concessions from trading partners. Regardless of the court's decision, Trump has other legal avenues to impose tariffs, and the administration has indicated preparedness to switch to alternative authorities if necessary. The ruling's implications extend beyond trade policy, potentially affecting the broader use of emergency powers in U.S. governance and the balance of power between Congress and the executive branch.