A majority of US Supreme Court justices appeared deeply skeptical of the legality behind a swath of Donald Trump’s tariffs as they heard a landmark case Wednesday that could uphold — or upend — the president’s economic agenda.Billions of dollars in customs revenue and a key lever in Trump’s trade wars are at stake as the conservative-dominated panel again grappled with the Republican’s attempts to expand presidential powers.The high court’s nine justices are considering Trump’s use of emergency powers to impose “reciprocal” tariffs on nearly every US trade partner, as well as levies targeting Mexico, Canada and China over their alleged roles in illicit drug flows.In a hearing lasting more than two-and-a-half hours, several conservative justices, along with the three liberals, questioned whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) that Trump invoked confers the authority to impose tariffs.”The statute doesn’t use the word tariffs,” said Chief Justice John Roberts, and imposing tariffs is equivalent to taxation, which has always been a “core power of Congress.”The justices sought to clarify whether Congress has to give clear authorization for policies with significant economic or political consequences.Solicitor General John Sauer, arguing on behalf of the Trump administration, said this did not apply given the president’s inherent, broad range of authorities.”President Trump determined that our exploding trade deficits have brought us to the brink of an economic and national security catastrophe,” Sauer said.Sauer sought to frame the issue as one involving the power to regulate foreign commerce — including the ability to impose tariffs — rather than the power to tax.Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a liberal, noted that the power to impose taxes is a “congressional power, not a presidential power.””You want to say tariffs are not taxes, but that’s exactly what they are,” Sotomayor said.- ‘Simply implausible’ -Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, questioned if Congress could reclaim powers once it delegates them to the presidency, suggesting that “as a practical matter in the real world, it can never get that power back.”Neal Katyal, representing small businesses challenging Trump’s tariffs, charged that it was “simply implausible” that in enacting IEEPA, Congress “handed the president the power to overhaul the entire tariff system and the American economy in the process.”He contended that the word “regulate” has also not been used to impose taxes.But there were questions too surrounding refunds if Trump’s tariffs were overturned, with Justice Amy Coney Barrett saying it could be “a mess.”The court’s decision, which could take months to arrive, does not concern sector-specific tariffs Trump separately imposed, including on steel, aluminum and automobiles.Trump has brought the average effective tariff rate to its highest since the 1930s, and has repeatedly warned of calamity if his duties are overturned.A lower court ruled in May that he had exceeded his authority, with the case ultimately making its way to the Supreme Court.Trump did not attend Wednesday’s hearing but several top officials did, including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer.”In recent years, the court has been reluctant to overrule presidential decisions of this magnitude,” ING analysts said.But the outcome is hard to predict, they added, as “upholding Trump’s tariffs would shift the balance of power from Congress to the President.”Josh Lipsky of the Atlantic Council noted that even as justices were skeptical, they appeared concerned about fallout from overruling the tariffs.”How do the refunds work?” Lipsky asked. “What does this mean for the president’s foreign policy ability to negotiate deals?”Although Trump’s tariffs have not sparked widespread inflation, companies say they bear the brunt of higher import costs.Lawyers noted that if the top court finds Trump’s global tariffs illegal, the government can tap other laws to temporarily impose up to 15-percent duties while pursuing pathways for more lasting levies.Countries that have already struck deals with Trump may therefore prefer not to reopen negotiations.

New Yorkers voted overwhelmingly for Democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani to be their next mayor, setting up a likely showdown with his political foe President Donald Trump.Here are five things to know about the Muslim candidate’s history-making victory, and what comes as he prepares to take office on January 1:- Landslide victory -Mamdani, 34, broke one million votes, earning 50 percent of ballots cast compared to his closest rival, 67-year-old former state governor Andrew Cuomo, who won just shy of 42 percent of the vote on the largest turnout since 1969.A comprehensive ground game that Mamdani claimed involved 100,000 volunteers meant his campaign touched every corner of New York and every demographic.The leftist’s overwhelmingly positive message about making New York City more livable for all its inhabitants resonated with migrant families, young progressives and working-class voters alike.- Trump on horizon -Mamdani certainly has caught the attention of the commander-in-chief after calling for people to “reject Trump’s fascism.”The president has repeatedly attacked Mamdani as a “little Communist” and threatened to cut off federal funds to the city where he made his name if he was elected.Trump has threatened to subject New York to the same immigration enforcement as Los Angeles, Chicago and other major cities.- Time to prepare -Mamdani has less than two months to prepare to run the nation’s most populous city — which is also America’s financial engine room.He will need to assemble a cabinet to deliver his ambitious promises to The Big Apple including city-run supermarkets, free daycare and free bus routes.On Wednesday he named five women to co-chair his transition team — among them Maria Torres-Springer, who resigned her post as deputy mayor under outgoing Eric Adams due to his engagement with Trump.Major issues awaiting Mamdani include efforts by Adams to hobble his ability to freeze rents, as well as the prospect of some 1.8 million New Yorkers losing food assistance under the federal government shutdown.”His vision for New York is not crazy,” said Lincoln Mitchell, a Columbia University politics professor. “It’s filling in some of the gaps in our tattered social safety net.”Mamdani would need a team capable of navigating both City Hall and the state capital Albany, Mitchell added.- Jewish outreach -New York has the largest Jewish community outside of Israel and Mamdani has emphasized the threats posed by antisemitism, particularly towards the end of his campaign.Mamdani was attacked by pro-Israel groups for his unwavering support for Palestinian rights and his criticism of Israel’s conduct in the war in Gaza which he called “a genocide.”The Anti-Defamation League announced Wednesday the launch of a tracking mechanism to scrutinize Mamdani’s policies and appointments.Mamdani said he doubted the ADL’s ability “to do so honestly.””We will build a city hall that stands steadfast alongside Jewish New Yorkers and does not waver in the fight against the scourge of antisemitism,” Mamdani said in his victory speech.    Mayor Adams has previously said 57 percent of hate crimes in New York are against Jewish people.- End of an era -Cuomo’s loss lowers the curtain for now on the family’s long presence on the political scene as well as one-term mayor Adams’s career after he exited the race.”We have toppled a political dynasty,” Mamdani said after vanquishing the Cuomo name made famous by Andrew’s father Mario Cuomo who was also governor of New York.Mamdani’s insurgent campaign backed by leftist figures including Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez relied on a fresh team raising the prospect he will sweep a broom through City Hall, bringing a new approach and fresh ideas. It marks a leftward shift for the Democratic Party brand, and Mamdani was not endorsed by some in the party center like New York’s Senator Chuck Schumer.