WASHINGTON — The Trump administration requested the Supreme Court on Wednesday to swiftly determine whether the president has the authority to enact extensive tariffs under a law meant for emergencies.

The Justice Department is challenging an August 29 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which declared that Trump had overstepped his authority, the documents stated.

The filings, shared by the Justice Department and the challengers, have not yet been officially docketed by the Supreme Court.

Jeffrey Schwab, an attorney for the Liberty Justice Center — representing businesses opposing the tariffs — expressed confidence in a statement that the court would rule against the president.

“These unlawful tariffs are causing significant harm to small businesses and threatening their existence. We hope for a swift resolution for our clients,” he remarked.

The appeals court, in a 7-4 decision, stated that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, permitting the president to regulate imports during a national emergency, does not grant broad authority to impose indefinite global tariffs.

The tariffs are in effect and will remain in place until at least Oct. 14 under the appeals court ruling.

The administration submitted two filings: an appeal and a motion to expedite.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer urged the justices to expedite the case’s consideration, aiming for oral arguments to take place as early as the first week of November, which would necessitate the court deciding by next week whether to hear the case.

The challengers have agreed to that timeline, a Liberty Justice Center spokesman said.

The appeals court’s “erroneous decision has disrupted highly impactful, sensitive, ongoing diplomatic trade negotiations, and cast a pall of legal uncertainty over the President’s efforts to protect our country by preventing an unprecedented economic and foreign-policy crisis,” Sauer wrote.

The filings included a declaration by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent citing the importance of a quick ruling.

“Swift review of that decision is necessary to avoid derailing critical ongoing negotiations with our foreign trading partners and threatening broader U.S. strategic interests internationally,” he wrote.

The high court has a 6-3 conservative majority, including three Trump appointees. Although it has frequently ruled in favor of Trump in the first few months of his term, some legal experts believe it may be more skeptical about his tariff powers.

During the Biden administration, the court was skeptical of the White House’s moves to seek broad powers via laws enacted by Congress that did not explicitly authorize them. In one significant example, the court, endorsing what has been dubbed the “major questions doctrine,” ruled against President Joe Biden’s plan to forgive student loan debt.

The case under appeal affects two sets of tariffs Trump has imposed. The first are the country-by-country or “reciprocal” tariffs, which now range from 34% for China to a 10% baseline for the rest of the world. The second is a 25% tariff Trump imposed on some goods from Canada, China and Mexico for what the administration said was their failure to curb the flow of fentanyl.

Other tariffs implemented under other laws, such as 50% steel and aluminum tariffs on all other worldwide trading partners, were implemented under other statutes not at issue in the case.

Even if Trump loses at the Supreme Court, he has other avenues to impose additional tariffs.

V.O.S. Selections Inc., a wine and spirits importer, and Plastic Services and Products, a pipe and fittings company, are among five businesses that sued Trump over his use of the emergency law. Twelve states also challenged the move.

The Court of International Trade initially blocked the tariffs in late May, prompting the Trump administration to appeal.

Trump has long sought to raise revenue by taxing imported goods, which he believes will revitalize manufacturing in the United States. While the tariffs are bringing in billions of dollars in revenue, economists say they are slowing U.S. economic growth, while inflation has also ticked up.