Supreme Court Review of Trump’s Executive Power in Tariffs and Fed Dispute

President Donald Trump now has key elements of his economic policy under the scrutiny of the U.S. Supreme Court. Two landmark cases will shape just how far the President can push executive authority—in particular, his attempt to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook and his sweeping use of trade tariffs under emergency powers.

The first case challenges Trump’s move to fire Lisa Cook, a Federal Reserve governor appointed under his predecessor. The request would undo a binding federal order that has so far halted her removal—an action that, if permitted, would mark the first time since 1913 that a governor of the Fed has been dismissed without cause. Her alleged misconduct before joining the Fed is central to the administration’s claims, but critics argue the “for-cause” protections and due process remain intact.

The second case examines whether Trump lawfully invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose broad tariffs on imports, citing national emergencies. On September 9, the Supreme Court agreed to weigh whether such use of emergency powers oversteps constitutional limits by enabling tariffs without explicit legislative approval.

These disputes encapsulate a broader confrontation over separation of powers, trade policy, and monetary independence. With a conservative Supreme Court majority, the outcomes could recalibrate executive-legislative balance, especially in defining how much control the President may wield over independent institutions like the Fed and over trade tools like tariffs. Keywords such as “Supreme Court review,” “Trump tariffs IEEPA case,” “Fed Governor removal,” “executive power trade,” and “separation of powers USA” anchor this coverage, stressing the clash between executive reach and institutional checks.