Supreme Court rules that Trump’s sweeping emergency tariffs are illegal

The Supreme Court dealt a major setback to President Donald Trump on Friday, ruling that he broke federal law when he imposed sweeping global tariffs without clear authorization from Congress. The 6–3 decision marks one of the most consequential defeats for the second Trump administration, particularly on an issue central to the president’s economic and foreign policy strategy.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, concluding that Trump overstepped the authority granted to him under federal law. The Court determined that the emergency powers the president relied upon — the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) — do not provide clear authorization to impose broad tariffs. Roberts emphasized that if a president seeks to exercise such sweeping economic power, Congress must explicitly grant it. The emergency statute cited by the administration, the Court said, “falls short.”

The ruling represents a notable shift after a series of earlier emergency decisions in which the Court had sided with Trump on matters such as immigration enforcement, restructuring independent agencies, and cutting government spending. Unlike those emergency rulings, this case received full review and resulted in a decisive loss for the administration.

According to accounts from the White House, Trump learned of the decision while meeting with governors and reacted angrily, reportedly calling it “a disgrace.” Later at a press conference, he publicly criticized members of the Court — including two justices he appointed — for ruling against him.

Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch joined Roberts and the Court’s three liberal justices in the majority. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.

At the heart of the dispute was Trump’s use of IEEPA, a 1970s-era law that allows a president to “regulate” imports during national emergencies. The administration argued that this language included the authority to impose tariffs. Challengers — including small businesses — countered that the statute never mentions tariffs or duties and that the president was asserting an extraordinary power to tax without congressional oversight. Roberts agreed with that view, writing that the power to regulate commerce does not automatically include the power to tax it.

The case carried enormous economic consequences. The tariffs in question included Trump’s so-called “Liberation Day” measures and duties imposed on imports from China, Mexico, Canada, and other major trading partners. Some tariffs reached as high as 50% on certain countries and up to 145% on Chinese imports. Altogether, the federal government has collected approximately $134 billion under the challenged tariff programs, affecting more than 300,000 importers.

However, the Court did not clarify what should happen to that money. The majority opinion left unresolved whether the government must return the billions already collected, leaving that complex issue for lower courts to address. In his dissent, Kavanaugh acknowledged that sorting out potential refunds could be messy and complicated. Administration officials have warned that reimbursing importers could significantly disrupt the US economy.

The decision also touches on broader constitutional themes. In recent years, the Court has frequently invoked the “major questions doctrine” to block executive actions lacking clear congressional authorization, including policies from former President Joe Biden such as student loan forgiveness and pandemic-era vaccine mandates. While the conservative majority previously used that doctrine to rein in Biden’s initiatives, some justices argued that the same principle should apply to Trump’s tariffs.

Justice Elena Kagan, writing separately, agreed with striking down the tariffs but argued that the outcome could be reached through standard statutory interpretation without relying on the major questions doctrine. She maintained that the plain meaning of “regulate” in the statute does not naturally include levying taxes.

Reactions from Republican figures were mixed. Former Vice President Mike Pence praised the ruling as a victory for constitutional separation of powers, emphasizing that the Constitution grants Congress — not the president — the authority to impose taxes. Some Republican lawmakers who had criticized Trump’s tariff policies said they felt vindicated by the decision.

Despite the setback, Trump signaled he may pursue alternative legal avenues to impose tariffs. Other statutes — including provisions in the Trade Act of 1974 and the Tariff Act of 1930 — offer more limited and conditional authority to raise duties, though they come with constraints such as time limits or industry-specific requirements.

Legal analysts describe the ruling as one of the most significant Supreme Court decisions affecting the US economy in years. It not only blocks a major element of Trump’s trade strategy but also reinforces the principle that sweeping economic measures require clear and specific approval from Congress.

Source: CNN