The highest US court could soon make a model ruling on the president’s trade policy. This would also affect the negotiations with Switzerland.
November 17, 2025, 09:17November 17, 2025, 09:25
Renzo Ruf, Washington / ch media
The schedule is sporty. The USA and Switzerland want to reach a legally binding trade agreement as early as the first quarter of next year. This agreement is intended to replace the declaration of intent that was presented on Friday in Washington and Bern after much trepidation. This can be found in the “Joint Statement” published by the White House.
The Supreme Court could thwart American President Donald Trump’s plans. image: AP
One reason why the White House is now stepping up the pace: the American president and his advisors are under pressure. You want to create facts as quickly as possible. Trump runs the risk of being kicked back by America’s highest court in the next few months.
The Supreme Court is currently considering a civil lawsuit against the president’s “reciprocal” punitive tariffs. And a majority of the nine constitutional judges appear to be skeptical about the legal foundation on which Trump built his economic retaliatory measures against sovereign states like Switzerland.
They seem to doubt that an emergency law passed in 1977 really gives the president the power to make imports from selected countries more expensive. At least that was the conclusion of long-time observers of the Supreme Court when the court held an oral hearing on November 5th. The Trump administration sees it differently. “I don’t think this verdict will go against us,” said Finance Minister Scott Bessent in a TV interview on Sunday.
Federal Council points out that the “Joint Statement” is non-binding
If the Supreme Court were to collect the punitive tariffs, then the president would have to bury his “reciprocal” import taxes. The punitive tariffs on imported goods from Switzerland would then automatically fall from 15 percent back to the level that was in force before April 2nd.
What consequences would this have for the agreement presented on Friday? Legally, the answer to this question seems clear. The “Joint Statement” would no longer be worth the paper on which it was written. “If the legal basis for the existing tariffs ceases to exist, the tariffs based on this legal basis must be abandoned.” That’s what Alan Sykes, a law professor at Stanford Law School in California, says in an interview with CH Media.
Guy Parmelin also said the same on Friday. During a media conference in Bern, the Federal Council pointed out that the “Joint Statement” was not a legally binding document. Theoretically, it would therefore be possible that Switzerland would “simply drop” the agreement, said the Federal Council – even if the Federal Government is of course aware that Trump has other legal options in addition to the emergency law from 1977 to impose punitive tariffs on imported goods.
How would Switzerland react?
The initial situation would be somewhat complicated if the Supreme Court’s ruling were made public at a time when Washington and Bern had already negotiated a legally binding agreement. The judge’s ruling would actually have no direct consequences for such an agreement, says law professor Sykes. But politically, the consequences would certainly be noticeable if Trump’s most important means of pressure were to suddenly disappear.
Sykes says: If the Supreme Court overturns the punitive tariffs, each country will have to decide whether it wants to continue to “fulfill its obligations” to the USA. In any case, he does not necessarily recommend that the affected countries – for example Switzerland – give the American president the cold shoulder. “Given Trump’s inclinations” to make rapid economic policy decisions, the US’s trading partners would probably be better off if they could show a written agreement with the American government, says the Stanford professor.
That may be true, from the American perspective. In Switzerland, however, after a ruling by the Supreme Court, there would probably be political fire in the roof – especially if the people could also vote on the agreement.