Conservative and liberal Supreme Court justices alike seemed dubious of President Trump’s tariffs justified by declarations of national emergencies as they heard arguments in a legal challenge to the policy.

The court will now begin drafting its opinion behind closed doors after a nearly three-hour hearing that provided a glimpse into the justices’ thinking.

Here are five takeaways from Wednesday’s oral argument.

Conservative majority split

The justices seem unlikely to split along its 6-3 ideological lines when ruling on Trump’s tariffs.

Three of the court’s conservative members posed penetrating questions to the Trump administration, expressing unease about the expansion of executive power sought by the president.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett wondered early on whether there is “any other place” in the law or “any other time in history” where a phrase key to Trump’s position, “regulate importation,” has been used to confer tariff-imposing authority.

Chief Justice John Roberts noted that the emergency statute at the case’s core has never been used to justify tariffs.

“No one has argued that it does until this particular case,” he said.

And Justice Neil Gorsuch looked for where to draw the line.

“You say we shouldn't be concerned, because this is foreign affairs, and the president has inherent authority, and so delegation [is] off the books, more or less,” Gorsuch said. “What would prohibit Congress from just abdicating all responsibility to regulate foreign commerce — for that matter, to declare war — to the president?”

“We don’t contend he could do that,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer said.

“Why not?” Gorsuch pressed.

'Major questions' doctrine

A legal theory that the Supreme Court has cited when striking down major Democratic initiatives could be the coup de grace for Trump’s emergency tariffs.

Several justices raised the “major questions" doctrine, which holds that presidents may not enact initiatives with sweeping economic or political implications where Congress’s........

© The Hill