By bizn_fun 
At a hearing in November, the majority of the justices, including several conservatives, expressed doubts over the White House’s justification for the import duties, which the president has claimed are necessary to restore America’s manufacturing base and fix its trade imbalance.
The White House has said that officials will find alternative avenues, if the court does not rule in its favour. That could include existing legislation which allows the president to put tariffs of up to 15% in place for 150 days.
Trump has described the battle over tariffs in epic terms, warning a loss would tie his hands in trade negotiations and imperil national security. He has said that if he does not win the case, the US would be “weakened” and in a “financial mess” for many years to come.
But many businesses in the US and abroad, which have been paying the price since Trump imposed global tariffs last year, are hoping the court deems his levies illegal.
Lawyers for the challenging states and private groups say IEEPA – the 1977 law the Trump administration invoked to impose the steepest tariffs – never mentions the word “tariffs”. They contend that only Congress can establish taxes under the US Constitution.
Opponents have also challenged whether the issues cited by the White House, especially the trade deficit, represent emergencies.
At the November hearing, the justices spent relatively little time on questions about refunds. Judge Amy Coney Barrett, who was appointed to the Supreme Court by Trump, did note that any refund process could become a “complete mess” – language Trump echoed.
Some businesses have told the BBC that while they would try to recoup money if the government is forced to issue refunds, the payments would not make up for the disruption caused by the Trump administration’s trade policies.