The Supreme Court of the United States on Friday struck down President Donald Trump’s sweeping emergency tariffs, ruling they exceeded federal authority and violated the law. The decision marks a major legal setback for Trump, whose trade policy has relied heavily on unilateral tariff powers.
In a 6–3 ruling, the court determined that Trump could not use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a law from the 1970s, to impose broad import duties on goods from China, Mexico, Canada, and other nations. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, said presidents must have clear congressional authorization before imposing tariffs of unlimited scope, amount, or duration.
“The president asserts the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope,” Roberts wrote. “In light of the breadth, history, and constitutional context of that asserted authority, he must identify clear congressional authorization to exercise it.”
Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch joined Roberts and the three liberal justices. Dissenting were Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh.
While the court struck down the legal foundation for the tariffs, it did not clarify what should happen to the $134 billion already collected from over 301,000 importers, leaving the matter to lower courts. Kavanaugh warned that determining refunds could be complex and potentially disruptive to the economy.
The case arose after Trump imposed emergency tariffs, sometimes called “Liberation Day” duties, that reached up to 145% on Chinese goods and 50% on others. The administration argued that IEEPA’s emergency authority allowed the president to regulate imports, including imposing tariffs. Businesses challenged the move, saying the law does not mention “tariffs” and that Congress alone can authorize such broad taxation.
Lower courts had already ruled the emergency tariffs illegal but allowed the collection to continue while appeals were pending. The Supreme Court’s decision now firmly reinforces that major economic actions require explicit congressional approval, echoing the court’s recent use of the “major questions doctrine,” which limits unilateral executive power in areas of significant economic or political impact.
The ruling does not prevent presidents from imposing tariffs under other statutes, such as time-limited or national security-based authorities. However, these laws impose strict procedural limits that Trump’s emergency action bypassed.
The decision represents one of the most significant limitations on presidential authority in years, emphasizing that even powerful economic tools cannot override the legislative role of Congress. It also leaves the practical question of potential refunds and compensation unresolved, signaling further legal battles ahead.
This landmark ruling stands as a reminder that the president’s emergency powers are constrained by law, and sweeping actions affecting international trade and national revenue cannot proceed without legislative backing.
Leave a Reply