【By Observer Net, Wang Yi】The U.S. Supreme Court is making a ruling on whether President Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs is legal. The public had originally expected the decision to be announced this January, but it has not been released so far.

On February 10 local time, when asked by CBS about why the Supreme Court has "delayed" its ruling on the tariff case, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson responded that the case involves "many complex and subtle legal issues," and the court must carefully assess them.

Jackson emphasized that the Supreme Court's ruling is not a simple vote, but rather each justice forms their own judgment after thorough discussion and writes an opinion paper, "writing a decision takes time."

"The court is proceeding with its own deliberative process, and the American people expect us to make a comprehensive and clear ruling," she said, "and this sometimes takes time."

Jackson was appointed by former President Biden and took her oath nearly four years ago, becoming the first African-American woman to serve as a U.S. Supreme Court Justice. Since then, she has gradually become one of the most vocal critics of Trump within the Supreme Court.

On February 10 local time, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was interviewed by CBS. Video screenshot

The U.S. Supreme Court currently has nine justices, six of whom are conservatives and three are liberals. According to data from the blog SCOTUSblog, which focuses on reporting on the U.S. Supreme Court, in the 2024-2025 term, Jackson participated in majority opinions at a rate of 72%, the lowest among all justices, while she wrote 10 dissenting opinions, the most among all justices.

The core issue of the tariff case is whether Trump can legally impose so-called "reciprocal tariffs" under the IEEPA enacted in 1977. Trump has repeatedly claimed that the United States has been "losing out" in global trade, arguing that tariffs and non-tariff barriers have caused the U.S. long-term trade deficits. Last April, he first invoked the law, implementing a series of tariff measures through executive orders without congressional approval, which triggered a series of legal lawsuits in the U.S.

Trump defended his use of the IEEPA, claiming that the long-standing trade deficit in the U.S. poses an "unusual" and "extraordinary" threat to national security and the economy.

The dispute in the case is not only about the tariffs themselves, but also about where the boundaries of presidential power lie under the so-called "economic emergency" and the potential chain effects such decisions may have on global markets.

The U.S. Supreme Court has already held oral arguments on the case in early November 2025. In January of this year, Bloomberg News reported that the justices were accelerating the processing of the case, implying a possible "quick ruling," giving those opposing the tariffs hope for a decision unfavorable to the Trump administration quickly.

However, after the hearing, the U.S. Supreme Court has not yet announced a ruling on the legality of Trump's tariffs. On January 20 local time, the Supreme Court only handled three cases of lower public interest and did not announce the tariff ruling as expected by the public.

Currently, the U.S. Supreme Court is in recess, and the next session is scheduled for February 20, when opinions may be issued. However, it is generally expected that the Supreme Court will rule on the legality of the Trump administration's tariff measures in the coming months.

Business groups and the Trump side have both called for a faster ruling process, stating that the case is crucial for U.S. businesses, employment, and international trade partners.

In a Fox News interview on the 10th, Trump said: "I just hope the Supreme Court does the right thing for the country." U.S. Treasury Secretary Bessen previously warned that the U.S. is "on the verge of collapse," saying that the longer the final ruling is delayed, the greater the risk of economic chaos.

U.S. business groups have also stated that the tariffs themselves and the legal disputes surrounding their legitimacy have already impacted supply chain stability, consumer costs, and diplomatic relations with allies.

Critics point out that using emergency powers for trade policy could weaken the principle of checks and balances in the U.S. constitutional system and set a dangerous precedent.

Analysts say that regardless of the outcome, this case will have a profound impact on future U.S. trade policies and the boundaries of presidential power. If the court supports the Trump administration's approach, the space for future presidents to use emergency powers in the economic field may expand; if the ruling negates the legality of the tariffs, it may set new limits on executive power, but it may also prompt the government to seek other paths to achieve its trade goals.

Meanwhile, legal professionals and government officials say that if the IEEPA path is blocked, the White House may seek other legal authorizations or policy tools to continue imposing tariffs. This uncertainty increases the risks faced by businesses and trade partners.

While the Supreme Court is "carefully assessing," according to a report by the Financial Times, the U.S. House of Representatives voted on the 10th to reject a motion protecting the Trump administration's tariff policies, with three Republican members defecting and joining all Democratic members.

The report noted that although Trump can veto any anti-tariff resolution passed by Congress, this vote shows that some lawmakers on Capitol Hill are increasingly willing to challenge Trump's tough trade agenda. The relevant tariff measures have disrupted global trade and raised concerns about rising domestic prices in the U.S.

A survey conducted by the Pew Research Center this week showed that 60% of American adults disapprove of raising tariffs, including more than a quarter of Republicans.

This article is exclusive to Observer Net and cannot be reprinted without permission.

Original: toutiao.com/article/7605557505149764148/

Statement: This article represents the views of the author.