Anchor: The U.S. Supreme Court has begun considering the legality of the tariffs President Donald Trump has imposed on nations around the world, including South Korea. Oral arguments began Wednesday at the Supreme Court in Washington. While key conservative justices appeared skeptical of Trump’s right to impose emergency tariffs, the administration’s lawyers argued that reversing his policies could have “catastrophic” consequences for the U.S. economy.
Kim Bum-soo has more.

Report:

[Sound bite: US Supreme Court Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett]
“Can you point to any other place in the code, or any other time in history, where that phrase, together, ‘regulate importation,’ has been used to confer tariff-imposing authority?”

[Sound bite: US Supreme Court Associate Justice Elena Kagan]
“And I’m wondering what exactly, which, which powers you’re speaking of there? Because tariffs …”

The Trump administration’s lawyer fielded sharp questions from both liberal and conservative justices during Wednesday’s hearing.

The central issue in the nearly three-hour hearing was whether the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act(IEEPA) provided a legal basis for Trump’s sweeping tariffs.  

U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing the Trump side, argued that U.S. trade deficits have brought the nation to the brink of an economic and national security disaster.

[Sound bite: US Solicitor General D. John Sauer]
“Unwinding those agreements, he warns, would expose us to ruthless trade retaliation by far more aggressive countries and drive America from strength to failure with ruinous economic and national security consequences. ... The power to impose tariffs is a core application of the power to regulate foreign commerce, which is what the phrase ‘regulate importation’ in IEEPA naturally evokes.”

Representing a group of small businesses, the plaintiffs’ attorney stressed that the U.S. constitution grants Congress, not the president, the authority to impose tariffs.

[Sound bite: Attorney Neal Katyal]
“Tariffs are taxes. They take dollars from Americans’ pockets and deposit them in the U.S. Treasury. Our founders gave that taxing power to Congress alone. ... But never once did a president try and seek IEEPA as the basis to rewrite the entire tariff code.”

The administration argued that the law in question authorizes the president to regulate imports to address emergencies, making tariffs an option.

The Supreme Court, with a six-to-three conservative majority, has agreed with Trump on a series of emergency decisions this year.

A ruling against the Trump administration could have significant economic implications across South Korea’s industries.

South Korea only recently managed to convince the United States to lower its levy on the nation’s goods to 15 percent, from an initial 25 percent, after months of trade negotiations.

In exchange for the reduction, Seoul pledged to invest 350 billion U.S. dollars in its ally’s economy, consisting of 200 billion in cash and 150 billion in shipbuilding cooperation.

PricewaterhouseCoopers calculated last month that Trump’s invocation of the IEEPA had generated approximately 90 billion dollars in duties as of September 23 and could surpass 100 billion dollars by the end of October. 

South Korea was the United States’ No. 6 trading partner in 2024, with trade between the two nations totaling 239-point-six billion dollars.

Professor Song Se-ryan at Kyunghee University School of Law says if the global tariffs are ruled unlawful and subsequently suspended, U.S. importers who have paid them—including the U.S. subsidiaries of South Korean companies—may be able to seek refunds.

[Sound bite: Prof. Song Se-ryan - Kyunghee University School of Law]
"Such a ruling would also make it significantly harder for the Trump administration to weaponize tariffs as a unilateral economic tool. In practical terms, it would reassert Congress’s authority over trade policy, which would involve more procedural and rule-based, making the tariff policy more predictable and slower paced."

In the event of such a ruling, the White House says, there are other options.
Kim Bum-soo, KBS World Radio News.