The US Supreme Court on Wednesday considered the legality of President Trump's global tariffs, where a majority of the justices — both the court's three liberal-leaning justices, as well as three more conservative ones — offered skeptical questions regarding the president's authority to impose his most sweeping duties.

The court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has previously backed Trump in a series of decisions this year. But justices appeared skeptical of the president's authority, casting doubt over the centerpiece of Trump's second-term economic agenda.

"What would prohibit Congress from just abdicating all responsibility to regulate foreign commerce — for that matter, declare war — to the president?" Justice Neil Gorsuch, who was appointed to the high court by Trump, asked the US government's lawyer.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who was in attendance at Wednesday's hearing, said he "came away very, very optimistic."

If the Supreme Court do not rule in favor of Trump's tariffs its widely expected that the Trump administration will seek out alternative methods to carry out the US's trade agenda.

As Yahoo Finance correspondent Ben Werschkul has detailed, experts are split on the ultimate verdict the court will hand down. In any case, the outcome will offer significant ramifications for the global economy and its businesses and consumers.

Trump, meanwhile, has made clear he considers the case to be of paramount importance to his legacy, even as his administration touts the other legal avenues he could use to impose the duties.

Trump on Tuesday said the case is "literally LIFE OR DEATH for our country."

Read more: What Trump's tariffs mean for the economy and your wallet

The US and China reached a trade truce last week. The thaw means China will suspend additional export controls on rare earth metals and end investigations into US chip companies. Meanwhile, the US will pause some of Trump’s "reciprocal tariffs" on China for another year and will halt plans to slap a 100% tariff on Chinese exports to the US.

China announced on Wednesday that it will remove its tariffs on US farm goods, in response to the US removing fentanyl related tariffs on Beijing's exports.

Trump has said that the most advanced Nvidia (NVDA) chips will be reserved for US companies and kept out of China and other countries.

A spat over an ad featuring the late Ronald Reagan continues between the US and Canada. The Canadian prime minister said recently he apologized to Trump over the ad.

Oral arguments at the Supreme Court have concluded. The emerging consensus is that a majority of the high court's justices appeared skeptical of President Trump's authority to impose the tariffs. We'll outline a sampling of coverage below.

From Bloomberg:

Hearing arguments in Washington Wednesday, three conservative justices questioned Trump’s use of an emergency-powers law to collect tens of billions of dollars in tariffs a month.

Chief Justice John Roberts said the tariffs were an “imposition of taxes on Americans and that has always been the core power of Congress.” Trump-appointed Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett also asked skeptical questions, though all three also probed arguments pressed by tariff opponents.

The New York Times:

Justice Barrett, who is seen as a key vote, questioned the scope of President Trump’s reciprocal tariffs, which she described as “across the board.”

“Is it your contention that every country needed to be tariffed because of threats to the defense and industrial base?” she asked. “I mean, Spain? France? I mean, I could see it with some countries but explain to me why, as many countries needed to be subject to the reciprocal tariff policy, as are.”

Several justices also noted that Mr. Trump is the first president in 50 years to claim the emergency statute allows the president to impose tariffs.

The Wall Street Journal said in its headline that the \\"Supreme Court appears skeptical of Trump's tariffs.\\"

Over the course of nearly three hours, justices on both sides of the court’s ideological divide asked questions that signaled skepticism of the government's claim that Ieepa gives the president unbounded authority to impose global tariffs. Still, the arguments weren’t a complete rout, and conservative justices in particular made clear that they were cognizant of Trump’s broad powers to address foreign affairs.

One more reaction, nodding to the dipping prediction market odds of US government victory:

I'm no lawyer, but the Supremes seem unimpressed by the President's lawyer in the tariffs case.

Prediction markets have revised the probability of the White House winning (and the tariffs being found constitutional) from 45% to 30% in just half an hour.

The question at the… pic.twitter.com/IzKVOo8zOu

— Justin Wolfers (@JustinWolfers) November 5, 2025

Several of the Supreme Court's conservative-leaning justices questioned a US government lawyer over President Trump's authority to impose tariffs on trading partners, casting early doubt over their future.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, drew the most notice for his line of questioning to US Solicitor General D. John Sauer. Gorsuch posed a hypothetical in the case of a theoretical future Democratic president.

\\"Could the president impose a 50% tariff on gas-powered cars and auto parts to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat from abroad of climate change?\\" Gorsuch asked.

Sauer responded that it was \\"very likely.\\"

Gorsuch also questioned Sauer over the president's ultimate authority and when Congress could delegate it to the executive.

\\"What would prohibit Congress from just abdicating all responsibility to regulate foreign commerce — for that matter, declare war — to the president?\\" he asked.

Chief Justice John Roberts, along with Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh — the latter two of whom were appointed by Trump — also at times posed skeptical questions. Kavanaugh asked why no president before Trump had invoked this authority, while Barrett questioned the across-the-board nature of the tariffs.

Reuters reports:

U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Wednesday said he came away from a Supreme Court hearing on the legality of President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs feeling ​\\"very, very optimistic.\\"

Bessent told Fox Business Network's \\"Kudlow\\" program he thought plaintiffs challenging ‌Trump's use of a 1977 law to justify tariffs had \\"almost embarrassed themselves,\\" and he was confident the Supreme Court would reverse a ‌lower court ruling that the tariffs were illegal.

Asked how the administration would return the large amounts of funds already collected if the Supreme Court upheld the ruling, Bessent, who attended the arguments on Wednesday, said: \\"We'll cross that bridge if we come to it, but I'm confident we won't have to.\\"

U.S. Supreme Court justices heard more ⁠than 2-1/2 hours of oral ‌arguments on the case on Wednesday, with both conservative and liberal justices raising doubts about whether a 1977 law meant for use during national emergencies gave Trump the power to impose tariffs or ‍whether the Republican president had intruded on the powers of Congress.

Read more here.

The US Supreme Court's hearing on Wednesday has fueled speculation around President Trump's tariffs and whether they will remain in place. The question around the legality of Trump's trade agenda and whether the US president overstepped his authority in imposing them, provoked a tough integration from the Supreme Court Justices.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent left the hearing on Wednesday saying he felt \\"very optimistic,\\" in reference to the outcome.

If Trump's tariffs are struck down, will the US have to refund the money it has made so far from its global trade levies? If a refund were to be made some feel it will be a complete \\"mess.\\"

Other experts have said that a rejection of tariffs by the Supreme Court would be a \\"temporary setback\\" for the president, who will likely seek out other methods in order to push his tariff agenda.

Reuters reports:

POTENTIAL REFUNDS \\"A MESS\\"

The issue of refunds was raised by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who said that it \\"could be a mess\\" for the courts to administer refunds to U.S. importers who have paid tariffs that were declared illegal.

Neal Katyal, the lawyer representing five small businesses challenging the tariffs, said that these firms would get their refunds automatically if the court ruled ​against the Trump administration, but all other companies would have to lodge administrative protests to get money back. \\"It's a very complicated thing\\" that could take a long time, he added.

But Katyal said ‌the court \\"could limit its decision to prospective relief\\" by only stopping future collections.

Joseph Spraragen, a customs lawyer in New York, said a ruling that includes no provisions for refunds would result in major new court challenges from companies that paid duties.

\\"If they're illegal today, they were illegal in February 2025 and in April, when the reciprocal tariffs kicked in,\\" said Spraragen, a partner at the firm of Grunfeld Desiderio Lebowitz Silverman & Klestadt.

He said the Supreme Court would likely remand the case to a lower court, most probably the U.S. Court of International Trade, to issue instructions to the Trump administration to rescind the tariffs and issue refunds. The most expedient method would be to issue refunds through the Customs and Border Protection's Automated Customs Environment processing system, he said, but that could take up to a year.

\\"⁠Keep in mind that the administration is not going to be eager to just roll over and give refunds,\\" Spraragen said.

SHIFTS IN ​LAWS

Natixis analyst Christopher Hodge said the \\"bureaucratic complexity\\" surrounding refunds was among a murky set of outcomes if the administration loses at ​the Supreme Court. Such a loss would only be a \\"temporary setback to the Trump trade agenda,\\" he said, as the administration would shift to trade laws that offer clear tariff authority, including Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, a national security trade statute, and Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows ‍temporary 15% duties for 150 days.

Read more here.

President Trump has met with executives from Switzerland to discuss tariffs and trade. The US president suggested that more trade talks were needed as both sides attempt to rebuild the frayed relationship.

Bloomberg News reports:

Trump has imposed a 39% tariff on the country, threatening to drive up costs for chocolatiers including Lindt and watchmakers such as Swatch Group and Rolex SA.

Swiss diplomats have also been engaged in negotiations with the officials in Washington in the hope of having the levy cut. The Swiss government was informed of the private-sector push, but didn’t control it, according to the economy ministry in Bern.

“This is a private initiative by Swiss business leaders, which was supported by the State Secretariat for Economic Affairs in its preparation, but is taking place independently of the Federal Council’s involvement in this matter,” a spokesperson said in an email.

Read more here.

In the first few months of President Trump's tariff regime, uncertainty and chaos defined the auto sector. US carmakers felt exposed to higher tariffs, and many believed the industry would have to pass these higher costs on to consumers. However, the prospects for the Big Three US automakers — GM (GM), Ford (F), and Stellantis (STLA) —seem to be improving.

The FT reports:

Jim Farley, Ford chief executive, described his group as “the most American company with a $2bn liability” while Stellantis chair John Elkann warned that the US car industry was being “put at risk” by the levies. General Motors (GM) was also caught in the middle of the Trump storm because of its large manufacturing operations in South Korea, Mexico and Canada for vehicles that are sold in the US.

But prospects for the so-called Big Three have recently improved.

Both GM and Ford (F) have reduced the estimated size of their maximum tariff exposure for this year from a combined $7bn to $5bn.

As GM raised its profit guidance in October, chief financial officer Paul Jacobson indicated to investors that next year would be “even better than 2025,” driving up its share price by 15 per cent.

“GM is stronger and more resilient than ever. We are adjusting our business to a new tariff and regulatory environment,” Jacobson said.

Read more here.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday began its highly anticipated consideration of President Trump’s sweeping blanket tariffs, with the lawyer for the government making an audacious case.

Trump’s duties \\"are not revenue-raising tariffs,\\" US Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued before the court, calling the tens of billions of dollars currently being brought in each month \\"only incidental.\\"

He went further, saying Trump has based his moves this year \\"not on the power to tax.\\" What Trump is imposing, he said, \\"are clearly regulatory tariffs, not taxes.\\"

The argument was met with immediate skepticism, leading both legal experts and the markets to conclude Wednesday that these blanket tariffs — a centerpiece of President Trump’s trade program — may be in peril.

Read more here.

Prediction markets are notoriously volatile. Now that we've gotten that out of the way: Those markets have grown much more bearish today on the odds of President Trump prevailing in this case.

Polymarket has odds of the Supreme Court ruling in favor at 23%, down from around 40% before the oral arguments. Odds on Kalshi took a similar dive. On PredictIt, bettors saw about 80-20 odds that the court would \\"strike down\\" the tariffs.

Oral arguments in the case involving President Trump's tariffs are ongoing. (You can listen at the Supreme Court's website.)

I am also enjoying following the SCOTUSBlog live blog, for those interested in catching up!

Toyota (TM) stock fell 2% in premarket trading on Wednesday after reporting a drop in profit in its third quarter earnings. The Japanese automaker said President Trump's tariffs have harmed the sector.

The AP reports:

Net profit for the April-September period at Toyota Motor Corp. totaled 1.77 trillion yen ($11.5 billion), down from 1.9 trillion yen a year earlier.

But the maker of the Camry sedan and Lexus luxury models lifted its profit forecast for the full fiscal year ending in March 2026 to 2.93 trillion yen ($19 billion), citing better vehicle sales and cost-cutting efforts.

The forecast would represent a 38.5% drop from the 4.77 trillion yen profit Toyota reported for the last fiscal year. It had earlier forecast 2.66 trillion yen ($17 billion) in profit for this year.

Although tariffs are hurting its business, Toyota said its sales grew in the U.S. and its home market of Japan.

U.S. tariffs on Japanese automobiles and auto parts fell to 15% in September from the 27.5% rate Trump initially ordered after returning to the White House. That's much higher than the original 2.5%.

Japan’s exports to the U.S., including vehicles, have plunged recently.

But Toyota said its efforts, such as bigger sales, better model mix and cost cuts, will add more than 900 billion yen ($5.8 billion) to the company’s bottom line in this fiscal year.

Read more here.

China announced on Wednesday that it will remove tariffs on US farm goods in response to the US removing fentanyl-related tariffs on Beijing's exports.

This latest move from China is part of the broader trade pact between President Trump and China's Xi Jinping last week, when the two sides agreed to a one-year trade truce.

Bloomberg News reports:

The country’s Ministry of Finance confirmed in a notice on Wednesday that it will end all tariffs imposed March 4 on soybeans and other US agricultural products including corn, wheat, sorghum and chicken. The move was previously flagged in a White House fact sheet.

The cancellation — to take effect Nov. 10 — comes hours after US President Donald Trump signed a pair of executive orders. They formalized slashing fentanyl-related levies on Chinese exports to 10% and bringing down the reciprocal US tariff rate from 34% to 10%.

The moves are part of a broader trade pact between Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping that’s set to last one year and has, at least temporarily, stabilized what had been a turbulent relationship. Before their summit in South Korea last week, the two leaders had been locked in a cycle of actions and retaliations on trade.

Read more here.

President Trump's tariffs now rest largely in the hands of three of the US Supreme Court Justices that he appointed. The court will consider the fate of Trump's tariffs on Wednesday.

Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett were all appointed by Trump and have generally backed the president in most of his emergency orders this year, allowing Trump to implement his policies on a temporary basis.

But this will be the first time the court addresses the issue of whether Trump overstepped his authority with his \\"Liberation Day\\" tariffs.

Bloomberg News reports:

To varying degrees, the Trump appointees have hinted that they aren’t sure bets to back him as he seeks unprecedented authority to levy tariffs in the name of addressing national emergencies.

“I don’t think it’s inevitable that this is going to be a sort of partisan alignment, or the sort of standard 6-3 alignment that we’ve seen in some other cases,” said Roman Martinez, an appellate lawyer at Latham & Watkins who helped file a brief for the US Chamber of Commerce opposing the tariffs.

The case will decide the fate of most of the import taxes Trump has imposed since taking office, including his April 2 “Liberation Day” tariffs.

Trump says the tariffs are authorized by the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which gives the president a panoply of tools to address national security, foreign policy and economic emergencies – but doesn’t explicitly authorize tariffs. Administration lawyers say the national trade deficit and fentanyl crisis constitute emergencies that let the president invoke the law and impose tariffs on trillions of dollars of trade.

Here’s a look at how each Trump appointee might approach the case, along with another key figure, Chief Justice John Roberts. The companies and states challenging the levies will probably need the votes of two of the four to win the case.

Read more here.

Yahoo Finance's Ben Werschkul reports:

Tariff watchers have had this Wednesday circled on their calendars for weeks now, as the Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on the legality of the authority President Trump has used to impose the lion's share of his tariffs.

That’s in part because observers are split about how things will play out once deliberations begin and ahead of a decision that could come before the end of the year.

The case — formally known as Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump — is one that experts in both the legal and trade space are calling a toss-up. And it's made all the more fraught by Trump's keen personal interest in the outcome and a White House public pressure campaign already in evidence.

As for the projections, the odds are notable in how little confidence there is in any outcome.

In a Yahoo Finance interview recently, both Raymond James managing director Ed Mills and Veda Partners managing partner Henrietta Treyz floated coin-flip level 50% odds, with Treyz adding a base case from \\"50% to 65% odds that the Supreme Court will side with two lower courts and say the president doesn't have this authority.\\"

Read more here.

The next hurdle for President Trump, following his meeting with China's leader Xi Jinping last week, will be the Supreme Court hearing on Wednesday, which will decide the legality of Trump's \\"Liberation Day\\" tariffs.

Trump said he doesn't plan to attend the hearing, but emphasized how important it is for the American people. So here's what's riding on the landmark case.

CNN reports:

Almost $90 billion in tariff revenue

As of September 23, American businesses have paid nearly $90 billion to cover the IEEPA tariffs being challenged, according to US Customs and Border Patrol data. That’s more than half of the tariff revenue the country collected during the 2025 fiscal year, which ended on September 30.

Earlier this month, Trump said in an interview with Fox Business that if the Supreme Court ruled against him, “we’d have to pay back money” and reimburse companies for the billions of dollars they have already paid.

Trade agreements

The threat of instantly imposing higher tariffs is a key tool Trump has used to pressure countries into entering trade agreements and, in some cases, signing deals with the United States. In exchange, trading partners have committed to increasing purchases of American goods and increasing their investments in American businesses on top of lowering tariffs on American exports.

But all that could be jeopardized if the Supreme Court sides against Trump.

Read more here.