On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments and asked questions about the legality of President Donald Trump’s tariffs. The major question at stake: Can a president use an emergency powers law to overhaul international trade and raise taxes without getting Congress to go along?

To discuss how the justices were thinking about the case, “Marketplace Morning Report” host David Brancaccio chatted with Jess Bravin, the Supreme Court correspondent for The Wall Street Journal, who listened to every word of the arguments.

The following is an edited transcript of their conversation. Brancaccio started by asking if the justices were buying what the administration was selling.

Jess Bravin: No, they weren't. And it was interesting to hear them talk about it, because we've been going for months with a bunch of unexplained emergency orders that have largely gone the administration's way. So to hear the justices grilling Solicitor General John Sauer and really having skeptical questions about the administration's position was a reminder that the Supreme Court does take these cases one by one, and it's not a slam dunk, even for a president who has gotten, so far, pretty much everything he's asked for.

David Brancaccio: All right, so many issues on the table during that session. Let's listen to two justices, the chief justice, as well as Justice [Sonia] Sotomayor, on a similar subject. Here's John Roberts.

John Roberts: The vehicle is the imposition of taxes on Americans, and that has always been the core power of Congress

Brancaccio: And Sotomayor.

Sonia Sotomayor: I just don't understand this argument. It's not an article. It's a Congressional power — not a presidential power — to tax. And you want to say tariffs are not taxes, but that's exactly what they are.

Brancaccio: Now, Jess, this is important, right? Because we learn in civics class that Congress has the taxing power in America.

Bravin: You know, the most telling thing for the administration's chances was trying to characterize tariffs as a diplomatic measure, a foreign policy measure, to pressure other countries to see things Washington's way. But the Supreme Court accepted the challenger's view that taxes are different. There may be all kinds of things that the president can do, like perhaps a complete trade embargo, but taxes are different because they are about raising revenue. John Sauer insisted that raising revenue was not the point of these tariffs.

Brancaccio: All right, but you do have moments where justices express concern about taking away this power from the White House. Here's Brett Kavanaugh.

Brett Kavanaugh: You know, think about India right now, the tariff on India. Right, that's designed to help settle the Russia-Ukraine war.

Brancaccio: So, you know, an intense international issue. 'How can you tie the president's hands?' seems to be the thrust of that line of inquiry.

Bravin: Well, that's true. And that is a point that the court has to explore. And there is no doubt that tariffs are a tool the president has. And one thing that the government stressed, the solicitor general stressed was that the president should have greater deference from the courts when it comes to foreign affairs, which is one of the things that the president typically takes the lead on and courts are often reluctant to second-guess. And Kavanaugh was, as you said, very, very sympathetic to the president's needs. Perhaps he will agree with President Trump on this one.

Brancaccio: All right. And this was not just about tariffs, about trade policy, or about taxation. Let's listen to Justice Neil Gorsuch.

Neil Gorsuch: Congress, as a practical matter, can't get this power back once it's handed it over to the president. It's a one way ratchet toward the gradual but continual accretion of power in the executive branch and away from the people's elected representatives.

Brancaccio: I mean, at the heart of this, that's why so many people are paying attention — not just to figure out how much it's going to cost to import something, right?

Bravin: Well, that is right, because we know that President Trump has a very expansive view of his own powers. But leaving Trump even out of it, Justice Gorsuch was talking about a kind of structural reality. If the Congress disagrees with the way that the president is operating and wants to, say, cancel the emergency that has been declared, because the law allows Congress to do that. It takes a two-thirds vote of each house, because we assume the president would veto the initial resolution of disapproval. So that is the ratchet that Justice Gorsuch is talking about, that Congress can delegate its power much more easily they can recover it.