In a dramatic escalation of the ongoing legal and political battle over U.S. trade policy, a broad coalition of former judges, top economists, and state officials has called on the Supreme Court to strike down President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs. The high-stakes case, Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, U.S., No. 24-1287, is set for oral arguments on November 5, 2025, and could have far-reaching consequences for the nation’s economy and the constitutional balance of power.
The controversy centers on President Trump’s use of emergency powers to impose tariffs ranging from 10% to a staggering 145% on almost every major U.S. trading partner. Since February 2025, this unprecedented and chaotic series of executive orders has rattled markets, upended trade relationships, and sparked a tidal wave of legal challenges. According to Bloomberg Law, thirty-one former federal judges—appointed by both Republican and Democratic presidents—filed an amicus brief on October 24, 2025, urging the Supreme Court to reject Trump’s approach. They argued that most of the tariffs exceeded presidential authority to regulate imports and warned that allowing such unchecked power would destabilize the nation’s constitutional framework.
“If the President can exercise these powers at any time solely by saying that such an emergency exists, the balance of powers so thoughtfully embedded in our Constitution will become dangerously unstable,” the judges wrote in their brief, as reported by Bloomberg Law. The judges also pushed back against the Trump administration’s argument that courts lack the authority to review the president’s determination of a national emergency, calling such a view fundamentally at odds with the role of the judiciary.
Legal observers note that while it’s not unusual for former judges to weigh in on major cases, the sheer number of signatories and the prominence of the dispute have made this amicus filing especially noteworthy. Judge J. Michael Luttig, a George H.W. Bush appointee known for his prolific amicus briefs, was among those lending his voice to the cause. The case comes at a time of rising tension between Trump and the federal judiciary, with the president and his allies frequently criticizing judges—and even their families—when rulings go against him. Earlier this year, such attacks prompted a rare public rebuke from Chief Justice John Roberts after calls from Trump and congressional Republicans to impeach a federal judge who temporarily blocked a deportation order.
But it’s not just the judiciary weighing in. Nearly 50 economists from across the political spectrum, including former Federal Reserve Chairs Ben Bernanke and Janet Yellen, submitted their own brief on October 24, 2025, urging the Supreme Court to overturn most of Trump’s tariffs. According to their brief, the tariffs are “based on misconceptions about the global economy” and represent a fundamental misunderstanding of basic economic principles. “This is Economics 101, but the implications are profound,” the economists wrote, as cited by Bloomberg Law. Their argument underscores a growing consensus among experts that the tariffs are not only legally questionable but economically damaging as well.
Perhaps nowhere is the impact more keenly felt than in California, the nation’s largest economy and the world’s fourth largest. On the same day as the judges’ and economists’ briefs, California Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta filed their own amicus brief with the Supreme Court, calling the tariffs “illegal and harmful.” According to the governor’s office, Trump’s invocation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to justify the tariffs is a legal sleight of hand: “No emergency exists, the emergency law doesn’t allow for tariffs anyway, and instead of helping the American economy, Trump’s illegal tariffs have hurt families, farmers, and businesses by creating mass uncertainty and sending shockwaves through a previously healthy economy.”
California’s brief paints a dire picture: since the tariffs took effect, the state faces the loss of $25 billion and more than 64,000 jobs. As the largest importer of goods among all fifty states, California has been especially hard hit. “Trump’s illegal tariffs are punishing American families and small businesses. It’s not policy or business acumen — it’s betrayal and grift,” Governor Newsom declared in a statement. Attorney General Bonta echoed this sentiment, saying, “Any attempt by the Trump Administration to interpret IEEPA as giving it the power to impose tariffs is a feat of mental gymnastics. No matter how you spin it, no matter what definitions the Administration reaches for, 2 + 2 does not equal 10. Congress does not hide elephants in mouseholes — if Congress had intended to grant the President such extraordinary authority, it would have said so.”
The legal arguments hinge on the scope of the IEEPA, a statute enacted in 1977 to allow the president to respond to unusual and extraordinary foreign threats. For nearly fifty years, no president has ever invoked IEEPA to impose tariffs, and California argues that’s because the law doesn’t grant such power. Trump’s decision to use IEEPA, they contend, was a workaround to sidestep the usual tariff laws that Congress has authorized—laws that would not permit the kind of sweeping measures he’s put in place.
Other states and entities nationwide have filed similar lawsuits challenging the tariffs, and California’s own lawsuit, filed on April 16, 2025, is currently on hold pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Learning Resources v. Trump and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections. The stakes are high: the outcome could determine not only the fate of Trump’s tariffs but also the future limits of presidential power in economic emergencies.
For his part, President Trump remains defiant. According to Bloomberg Law, he has oscillated in public statements between dire warnings of economic collapse if the tariffs are struck down and effusive praise for their supposed benefits. “THE STOCK MARKET IS STRONGER THAN EVER BEFORE BECAUSE OF TARIFFS!” Trump boasted on his social media platform, Truth Social. His administration, led by Solicitor General D. John Sauer, has argued that the tariffs are necessary to address “country-killing trade deficits.” Trump has even hinted that he may personally attend the Supreme Court’s oral arguments in November, a move that would only heighten the spectacle surrounding the case.
Amid the legal wrangling, the broader debate over tariffs remains as heated as ever. Supporters of the president argue that strong action is needed to protect American industries and correct longstanding trade imbalances. Critics, however, warn that tariffs inevitably invite retaliation, raise consumer prices, and ultimately hurt the very workers and businesses they are supposed to help. In a nod to history, California’s brief quoted President Ronald Reagan: “High tariffs inevitably lead to retaliation by foreign countries and the triggering of fierce trade wars. The result is more and more tariffs, higher and higher trade barriers, and less and less competition. So, soon, because of the prices made artificially high by tariffs that subsidize inefficiency and poor management, people stop buying. Then the worst happens: Markets shrink and collapse; businesses and industries shut down; and millions of people lose their jobs.”
As the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments, all eyes are on Washington. The outcome could reshape the nation’s approach to trade and executive power for years to come. One thing is certain: the stakes have rarely been higher, and the voices on all sides—judicial, economic, and political—are making themselves heard loud and clear.
