As the U.S. Supreme Court scrutinizes the Trump administration's sweeping use of emergency tariffs, key officials are defending the strategy with fervor-despite signs of deep skepticism from the Court's conservative majority.

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer have mounted a public defense of tariffs enacted under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Their remarks follow intense oral arguments this week, where justices questioned whether the law truly allows the president to impose broad duties in the name of economic emergency.

"If you look at what's gone on with China over the past several months, anyone who thinks we don't have an economic emergency... is living under a rock," Greer said in a Thursday interview on Fox Business.

The administration's legal position relies on a national security justification under IEEPA-a 1977 statute that grants the president emergency powers, but which legal scholars say wasn't designed for revenue-generating trade policy.

Justices Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Amy Coney Barrett appeared particularly concerned about whether Congress had clearly delegated such powers. Chief Justice John Roberts questioned the "major questions doctrine," pressing whether such significant economic decisions require direct legislative approval.

Only Justice Brett Kavanaugh appeared potentially sympathetic to the administration's arguments, highlighting tariffs as a legitimate foreign policy tool, especially in complex cases like duties on India for its Russian oil purchases.

Still, multiple analysts predict that the Court is likely to strike down the tariffs. Trade attorney Jason Kenner noted, "It's not as easy to find five justices to uphold them." He expects a potentially swift ruling to avoid complications related to refunds for previously collected tariffs-a scenario raised during arguments by both Barrett and Alito.

Lutnick remained confident, calling the hearing "the Super Bowl of trade" and insisting "the justices were on the president's side." Trump echoed that sentiment in a Fox News interview, claiming, "If I didn't have tariffs, the entire world would be in a depression."

But critics say the administration is preparing backup plans. If the Court rules against IEEPA-based tariffs, officials may pivot to other mechanisms like Section 232, Section 301, or Section 122, which allow tariffs under stricter guidelines and shorter timeframes.

"IEEPA offers the most discretion," Kenner explained. "It's why the administration chose it-it's essentially unfettered authority."

Georgetown Law trade scholar Peter Harrell emphasized that Congress could codify the tariffs, but with midterm elections looming, lawmakers may hesitate to endorse policies that could raise consumer prices.

As the Supreme Court nears a landmark decision, the outcome could reshape how the U.S. government approaches trade enforcement-and determine whether the president's emergency economic powers can be used to reshape global supply chains at will.