WASHINGTON — In his first-ever appearance before the U.S. Supreme Court, Oregon Solicitor General Benjamin Gutman delivered a sharp and memorable argument in a high-stakes case challenging the president’s authority to impose sweeping tariffs, summarizing a complex constitutional debate with a single, witty metaphor.
The case, which consolidates challenges from a dozen states led by Oregon and various small businesses, scrutinizes President Donald Trump’s use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose billions of dollars in tariffs.
During oral arguments on Wednesday, justices grappled with the scope of presidential power. The administration’s lawyers contend that the IEEPA’s provision allowing the president to “regulate” imports during a national emergency inherently includes the power to set tariffs.
The challengers, represented by Gutman, argue this interpretation is a dangerous overreach that usurps Congress’s exclusive constitutional power to “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.”
The pivotal moment came during an exchange with Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who questioned Gutman’s position. Justice Kavanaugh suggested that it created an “odd donut hole” if Congress granted the president the immense power to impose a total embargo (prohibiting all trade) but not the lesser power to impose a simple tariff.
Gutman, arguing on behalf of the 12-state coalition, met the challenge directly.
“I think it absolutely does [make sense] because it’s a fundamentally different power,” Gutman replied, according to court transcripts. “It’s not a donut hole; it’s a different kind of pastry.”
The remark, which drew laughter in the courtroom, was more than just a clever quip. It served as the core of Gutman’s argument: that taxing (a tariff) is not a lesser version of regulating (an embargo). Instead, it is a distinct and separate power that the Constitution explicitly reserves for the legislative branch, and which Congress did not grant to the president within the IEEPA.
Several justices, including Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, expressed similar skepticism about the administration’s claims, as reported by SCOTUSblog. Justice Sotomayor pushed back on the idea that tariffs are not taxes, noting they “are generating money from American citizens, revenue.”
The case carries immense financial and constitutional implications. As noted in reports from the American Action Forum, a ruling against the administration could invalidate tariffs costing billions and require the government to issue massive refunds to U.S. importers.
More fundamentally, the court’s eventual decision will serve as a major statement on the separation of powers and the limits of executive authority in the modern era. While a ruling is not expected for several months, Oregon’s Solicitor General made a notable debut by framing the complex legal challenge in terms everyone could understand.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Who is Benjamin Gutman?
Benjamin Gutman is the Solicitor General for the State of Oregon. In this role, he represents the state in major appellate cases, including those before the U.S. Supreme Court. He is also listed as Oregon’s Interim Deputy Attorney General.
What case did Benjamin Gutman argue before the Supreme Court?
Gutman argued in a set of consolidated cases (including Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc.) on November 5, 2025. The case challenges the president’s authority to use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to unilaterally impose sweeping tariffs.
What is the IEEPA tariff case about?
The case centers on whether the 1977 law, which allows the president to “regulate” commerce during a national emergency, also grants the power to set tariffs. Opponents, including 12 states led by Oregon, argue that tariffs are a form of taxation, a power the U.S. Constitution reserves exclusively for Congress.
What did Benjamin Gutman mean by “a different kind of pastry”?
This was his response to Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who asked if allowing a president to impose an embargo but not a tariff created a “donut hole” in the law. Gutman’s “different pastry” metaphor argued that a tariff (a tax) is a fundamentally different power from an embargo (a trade regulation), not just a lesser version of it.
When will the Supreme Court rule on the tariff case?
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on November 5, 2025. A final decision in the case is expected before the end of the court’s term in the summer of 2026, though it could come sooner.
Who is the Solicitor General of Oregon?
The current Solicitor General of Oregon is Benjamin Gutman.
What states are involved in the lawsuit against the tariffs?
Benjamin Gutman argued on behalf of a coalition of 12 states. The lawsuit was led by the State of Oregon.
