The justices scrutinized the wording of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, debating whether its phrase 'regulate importation' legally encompasses imposing tariffs—a power historically reserved for Congress. The argument turned on textual interpretation, with liberal justices advocating a strict reading and conservatives weighing the consequences of unchecked executive reach. The major questions doctrine loomed large, requiring clear congressional intent for such impactful actions. Hypotheticals revealed concerns over abuse, like using tariffs as leverage in hostage situations. Justices from both sides expressed unease about delegating vast economic power without explicit statutory language. Notably, Justice Barrett pressed for precedent, uncovering a lack of historical justification for this use of authority. Skepticism was evident across the bench, suggesting the court may curb presidential power in trade policy. With fast-tracked proceedings, a ruling could come within weeks, potentially reshaping the balance of power in economic decision-making and undermining key elements of Trump’s trade agenda.