The United States Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Thursday that President Donald Trump exceeded his constitutional authority when he imposed sweeping tariffs on imports from around the world using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, delivering a landmark rebuke to the president's signature economic policy. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, stated that Trump had asserted extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration and scope, but pointed to no statute that clearly granted him such authority.
The ruling struck down tariffs that had been imposed on dozens of countries, including rates of up to 145 percent on Chinese goods, 25 to 35 percent on Canadian and Mexican imports, and a baseline of 10 percent on most other nations. The Trump administration had justified the measures by declaring persistent trade imbalances and the flow of fentanyl into the country as national security emergencies under the 1977 IEEPA statute. Roberts rejected this argument, writing that when Congress grants the power to impose tariffs, it does so clearly and with careful constraints, and that it did neither in this case. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.
Hours after the ruling, Trump lashed out at the six justices who voted against him, calling them a disgrace on his Truth Social platform. The president then announced that he had signed an executive order from the Oval Office imposing a new 10 percent global tariff on all countries, citing Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 as his legal authority. That provision, designed to address trade deficits, allows the president to impose tariffs for a maximum of 150 days, raising questions about the long-term viability of the new trade policy.
The decision has created significant uncertainty regarding more than 130 billion dollars in tariff revenue that the government collected under the now-invalidated IEEPA framework. Justice Kavanaugh warned in his dissent that importers may be entitled to refunds, though the court offered no guidance on the mechanism or timeline for such restitution. Legal experts have noted that the refund question could generate years of litigation and that American consumers and businesses who bore the cost of the tariffs through higher prices may never recover those losses.
The new 10 percent flat rate effectively replaces the previous tiered tariff structure, meaning some countries will see significant changes. China, which had faced tariffs as high as 145 percent, would see a dramatic reduction if the new rate applies uniformly. Conversely, the European Union, which had negotiated a 15 percent tariff rate as part of a trade agreement with the administration under the IEEPA framework, could now face a lower 10 percent rate. Trade analysts have cautioned that the 150-day limit on Section 122 tariffs means the administration will need to find alternative legal authority or seek congressional action to maintain any long-term trade barriers.
Global financial markets reacted with volatility to the twin developments of the court ruling and the new tariff announcement. The decision represents the most significant judicial check on presidential trade authority in decades and has prompted calls from both parties in Congress to reassert legislative control over tariff policy. Business groups that had challenged the original tariffs in court welcomed the ruling but expressed concern about the continued uncertainty created by the rapid imposition of replacement measures. Economists have warned that the ongoing turbulence in trade policy continues to weigh on investment decisions and supply chain planning for companies operating across international borders.
Comments