President Trump’s sweeping tariffs will be scrutinized by the Supreme Court on Wednesday, placing the president’s most significant economic initiative into the justices’ hands.

The main question looming over the case is whether Trump can use emergency powers to justify his worldwide levies as he seeks to transform global trade — an untested expansion of executive authority.

An appeals court’s 50-year-old decision to Trump’s own statements about his banner policy could come into play.

Here are five things to watch for out of the arguments.

The impact of Nixon tariffs

Trump has justified the bulk of his sweeping tariff agenda by pointing to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which gives the president power to “regulate” imports in response to certain emergencies.

Small businesses and Democratic-led states will make the case Wednesday that Congress never envisioned “regulate” to include tariffs when they passed IEEPA in 1977.

No president before Trump invoked the law to impose tariffs, so the Supreme Court has never decided that question. The justices’ answer may depend on how they view a 50-year-old appellate decision dating back to former President Nixon.

In August 1971, Nixon imposed a temporary 10 percent tariff by pointing to a near-identical provision in IEEPA’s predecessor, the Trading with the Enemy Act.

“It is an action to make certain that American products will not be at a disadvantage because of unfair exchange rates. When the unfair treatment is ended, the import tax will end as well,” Nixon said in a televised address announcing the surcharge.

An appeals court ultimately upheld Nixon’s action in United States v. Yoshida International Inc.

Expect plenty of mentions of the “Yoshida” case at Wednesday’s argument.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing the Trump administration, will make the case that Congress was aware of that decision when it reenacted the same language in IEEPA, so it would’ve recognized “regulate” to include tariffs.

The plaintiffs stress the Yoshida decision still rejected unlimited presidential tariff power, contending it can’t justify the breadth of the ones Trump has imposed.

'Persistent' problem, an 'emergency' or both

Even if IEEPA does allow tariffs, the statute only gives Trump authority to impose them to deal with a declared national emergency that poses an “unusual and extraordinary threat.” Trump cites two.

He has pointed to an influx of fentanyl to impose levies on Canada, China and Mexico that........

© The Hill