The Supreme Court heard oral arguments last week in a challenge against President Donald Trump's claimed emergency authority to impose tariffs on imported goods -- a case with major bearings on Trump's trade policies.

If the justices rule against him on tariffs, Trump warned on Monday, that decision would be based on erroneous information from his opposition that substantially downplayed the fiscal chaos that would ensue, Just the News reported.

Indeed, in Trump's view, a "negative decision" on the president's tariff authorities would not only force the complicated reimbursement of hundreds of billions of dollars in revenues already received, but would also significantly undermine the basis for a few trillion dollars in newly pledged foreign investments and reworked trade deals.

"Negative decision" on tariffs would prove costly

In a late night Truth Social post on Monday, President Trump wrote, "The U.S. Supreme Court was given the wrong numbers. The 'unwind' in the event of a negative decision on Tariffs, would be, including investments made, to be made, and return of funds, in excess of 3 Trillion Dollars."

"It would not be possible to ever make up for that kind of a 'drubbing,'" he added. "That would truly become an insurmountable National Security Event, and devastating to the future of our Country -- Possibly non-sustainable!"

That message echoed and escalated a similar warning issued by Trump earlier in the afternoon, in which he said, "The 'Pay Back' Numbers being quoted by the Radical Left Lunatics, who would love to see us lose on Tariffs because of how bad it would be for our Country, are much higher than those being stated by our Fake Opposition -- Opposition mainly from Foreign Countries that would do anything to be allowed to charge us Tariffs without retribution."

"The actual Number we would have to pay back in Tariff Revenue and Investments would be in excess of $2 Trillion Dollars, and that, in itself, would be a National Security catastrophe," he continued.

"Those opposed to us in the United States Supreme Court are giving low Numbers so that the Court will think it is easy to get out of this terrible situation that these Anarchists and Thugs have put us into!" the president added.

Justices seemed skeptical of claimed powers

According to SCOTUSblog, along with many other media outlets, several of the Supreme Court's justices expressed skepticism toward President Trump's broadly claimed authorities to impose tariffs of varying values on foreign goods without any additional input from Congress.

At issue here is the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, which, among several other powers delegated by Congress to the executive branch, grants the president the authority to "regulate … importation or exportation" of goods during a declared emergency -- though, notably, the law never explicitly references the imposition of tariffs.

The coalition of Democrat-led states and small businesses that challenged Trump's tariffs argued that the president has overstepped his bounds, that Congress would have been explicit in delegating its own tariff authorities to the president, and that while admittedly "very complicated," it wouldn't be to big of a problem for the administration to pay back the hundreds of billions in tariff revenues it has brought in so far this year.

The administration countered, however, that being forced to reimburse the previously collected tariffs would prompt a "national security catastrophe" and prove devastating to not just the economy but also to foreign relations and trade agreements.

Court's decision difficult to predict

While it is sometimes relatively easy to figure out how a majority of the Supreme Court justices will rule on a case by way of the questions and comments they make during oral arguments, this case in particular has proven more difficult to decipher, to say nothing of the multiple possible ways they could specifically tailor their eventual ruling.

It is unclear when that final decision will be released, but both the administration and the challengers have asked the court to move on an expedited timeline, so the opinion could potentially be released in just a matter of a few weeks or months.