Ontario’s ad, and a potential ‘complete mess’: Takeaways from the U.S. Supreme Court’s tariff hearing

Joy Malbon has the latest on how the day unfolded as the landmark case on U.S. President Donald Trump’s authority to issue global tariffs began.

The U.S. Supreme court weighed in on one of the most economically significant cases in decades, with huge implications for Canada.

The Court will have to decide if U.S. President Donald Trump has overstepped his authority by declaring a national emergency to unilaterally impose tariffs on 90 countries, including the one it shares its northern border with.

Outside the Court, protesters dressed like handmaidens from the TV series “The Handmaid’s Tale” marched with tariff signs. The show, based off Canadian author Margaret Atwood’s 1985 novel, looks at a totalitarian economic state, which for those opposed to Trump’s sweeping tariffs feels all too real.

The Court is a 6-3 majority of Republican-appointed judges, yet in the nearly three-hour oral arguments, several conservative-leaning judges, including those appointed by Trump seemed, well, skeptical, asking the toughest questions for the president’s lawyers.

U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts noted no previous president had used the emergency law before to implement tariffs. Justice Neil Gorsuch wondered about delegating such enormous economic power to the president without the checks and balances of the U.S. Congress, asking was this “overreach” of executive authority.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, appointed by former U.S. president Barack Obama in 2009, cut to the chase, raising the issue of the Ontario government’s anti-tariff ad featuring former U.S. president Ronald Reagan’s words. The ad reportedly angered Trump so much that he broke off trade talks with Canada and threatened to slap on another 10 per cent tariff.

Sotomayor also brought up Trump imposing a 40 per cent tax on Brazil because he was reportedly upset his friend, former Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro, was being prosecuted.

All of it raises big questions as to whether the president has overstepped his authority, using the emergency powers law to slap tariffs on any nation.

The case was brought forward by several U.S. states and a handful of small businesses. New York-based Wine importer Victor Schwartz said the economic pain of the tariffs has been felt across the country and the company’s survival is at stake.

“They’re gloating (over) all the billions of dollars they’re collecting, they think its great,” he said. “What they don’t say is they’re collecting it from American businesses.”

Afterwards, lawyers for the plaintiffs said they felt good, and that their sense and hope is that the Court will see that the tariffs are unconstitutional.

“The (U.S.) Constitution, our framers, 238 years of American history, all say only Congress has the power to impose tariffs on the American people,” lawyer Neal Katyal, who represents some of the businesses in the case. “Tariffs are nothing but taxes on the American people paid by Americans.”

Trump posted on Truth Social Tuesday that the “Court case is, literally, LIFE OR DEATH for our country.”

Trump has wielded tariffs to strike new trade deals with the European Union, Britain, China, Japan and South Korea.

Dr. Wayne Petrozzi, professor emeritus with the Department of Politics and Public Administration at Toronto Metropolitan University, summed up Canada’s position in stark terms.

“This is like somebody’s driving the train, we’re kind of in the back cars, and we don’t control its speed, and we don’t control its destination,” he said.

So, will the Court put the brakes on Trump’s tariff power? And would the nearly $90 billion in tariff revenue the U.S. government has collected so far have to be given back?

As Trump-appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett said Wednesday, it would be a “complete mess.”

With the president’s economic agenda at stake, the Court is expected to move swiftly on the issue, which could mean weeks or by the end of the year.