President Trump’s most significant economic initiative is now in the hands of the Supreme Court.

The justices announced Tuesday they will fast track whether Trump can use emergency powers to justify his sweeping tariffs worldwide, expediting oral arguments to the first week of November.

The stakes are tremendous.

A loss at the high court would doom the president’s efforts to refashion global trade. But a victory could cement new presidential powers and clear Trump’s path to greater executive authority.

On the line is Trump’s global “Liberation Day” tariffs and a series of levies specifically against Canada, China and Mexico dating back to February.

In many ways, the court’s announcement came with little surprise. Both the Trump administration as well as the small businesses and Democratic states suing urged the justices to get involved.

Even Justice Amy Coney Barrett appeared to give it away on a book tour interview with Fox News’ Brett Baier a day prior, seeming to momentarily question if the announcement was already out.

“That one has not been scheduled yet — to my knowledge,” she said.

“You might have more current information than I do."

Less expected was the high court’s decision to take up a near-identical challenge to Trump’s tariffs brought by a separate group of educational businesses.

The addition may not seem like much at first glance, but it raises a potentially major legal issue that has simmered below the surface of the tariff battle.

The first case was filed in the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT). It’s a specialty court that hears cases from all over the nation, but only if they concern customs and international trade laws.

The trade court had ruled the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not provide Trump with “unbounded” authority to impose his sweeping tariffs.

Here’s the problem: if the Supreme Court goes further and rules IEEPA doesn’t authorize tariffs, full stop, the trade court wouldn’t have the power to hear the case.

That would create a procedural hot mess, to say the least. No need to fear, as that’s where the additional case comes in.

In that scenario, federal district courts take charge.

Guess where the second case comes from? A federal district court.

In short, the addition allows the justices to keep their options open and avoid backing themselves into a corner.

Now, it’s full steam ahead, with opening briefs due in nine days. Everyone was on board with the speedy schedule.

“We are confident that the Supreme Court, like the CIT and the Federal Circuit, will recognize that the President does not have unilateral tariff power under IEEPA,” Jeffrey Schwab, director of litigation at the Liberty Justice Center, which represents one group of businesses. “Congress, not the President alone, has the constitutional power to impose tariffs.”

The states had similarly told the justices in court filings that “the issue is undoubtedly of great national importance.”

“Thus, although the Federal Circuit got it right — and although the petition is littered with inaccuracies, hyperbole, and citations to material outside the summary judgment record — the state respondents agree that this Court should grant expedited review,” they wrote.

Cases granted at this time normally head to oral arguments early next year. But the parties convinced the justices to move faster and set the argument for the first week of November.

“The en banc Federal Circuit’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,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in court filings on behalf of the administration.

It’s a late addition. The court has already announced its November argument calendar.

An open spot remains on Wednesday, Nov. 5, when the court will only hear one case.

The court could also meet the timeline by moving another case or scheduling an additional argument day on Thursday, Nov. 6 or Friday, Nov. 7.

Regardless, an argument in the first week of November — less than 60 days away — is speedy by Supreme Court standards.

The court can move fast when it wants to (Anyone remember Bush v. Gore? It was decided in less than a week).

Just this term, the court expedited arguments on the federal TikTok divest-or-ban law and took the bench 23 days after agreeing to hear it.

Last term, the justices heard Trump’s appeal of a ruling kicking him off Colorado’s presidential ballot under the 14th Amendment’s insurrection ban 34 days after taking it up. And although it wasn’t as fast as Trump’s critics would’ve liked, the justices held arguments on Trump’s presidential immunity claims 57 days after taking up the case.

Welcome to The Gavel, The Hill’s weekly courts newsletter from Ella Lee and Zach Schonfeld. Reach out to us on X (@ByEllaLee, @ZachASchonfeld) or Signal (elee.03, zachschonfeld.48).

Feds get tough on spitters as part of DC crime crackdown

Football fans last week were astonished by Eagles’ defensive star Jalen Carter’s ejection for spitting on Cowboys quarterback Dak Prescott just as the NFL season kicked off.

And fans of pop star Harry Styles might recall that, three years ago this week, the internet erupted over a viral clip that seemed to show the budding actor spit on his co-star Chris Pine’s lap at the Venice Film Festival.

But we’ve got our eyes on another group of spitters.

Federal prosecutors are coming down heavy on alleged spitters as Trump’s crime crackdown in Washington, D.C. approaches its second month.

At least four people who allegedly spat on National Guard troops or federal law enforcement face federal assault charges, including two instances where a felony charge was brought.

Maryland lawyer Scott J. Pichon was arrested on Aug. 22 after he allegedly spit on two members of the South Carolina Army National Guard assigned to a post at Union Station.

An Amtrak Police sergeant observed Pichon ride a scooter up to the National Guard troops and “make a noise like he was coughing up mucus,” according to a

© The Hill