The US Supreme Court has struck down a major portion of President Donald Trump’s tariff agenda, ruling he lacked authority under emergency powers, a significant setback to his signature economic policy.
WEBDESK – Act Global Media
In a landmark 6-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday struck down a large portion of President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariff program, dealing a significant setback to what has been a defining pillar of his second term in office.
The majority ruled that the law cited by the administration, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), “does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.” Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the opinion, joined by five justices. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.
Court rejects expansive use of emergency powers
At the heart of the ruling was Trump’s reliance on IEEPA, a statute that allows the president to regulate certain foreign transactions during a declared national emergency. The law does not explicitly mention tariffs.
The court concluded that Trump’s interpretation would amount to a “transformative expansion” of presidential authority over trade policy, noting that the Constitution grants Congress the power to levy taxes and duties.
Before Trump, no president had used IEEPA to impose tariffs on such a scale, the majority observed. To justify such authority, the president must point to “clear congressional authorization,” the court wrote. “He cannot.”
A central policy rebuked
Trump has made tariffs a cornerstone of his economic strategy, arguing they generate revenue, protect U.S. industries, and strengthen America’s negotiating hand globally. His administration imposed near-global “reciprocal” tariffs and additional duties targeting countries such as China, Mexico, and Canada, citing national security and concerns over fentanyl trafficking.
The Supreme Court’s decision invalidates many of those measures that were based on IEEPA. It does not immediately clarify whether previously collected tariffs, potentially totaling up to $175 billion, according to estimates from the Penn Wharton Budget Model, must be refunded. Justice Kavanaugh, in dissent, warned that any refund process could be a “mess” with substantial short-term impact.
Political and business reaction
Democratic lawmakers hailed the ruling as a victory for consumers and constitutional checks and balances. Critics of the tariff regime had long argued that the duties functioned as a hidden tax on American importers and households.
Business groups also welcomed the decision, saying it could restore predictability to global trade relationships after years of shifting tariff policies.
Internationally, Canada’s trade minister said the ruling reinforced Ottawa’s stance that the IEEPA-based tariffs were unjustified.
Tariff revenue and uncertainty ahead
Trump has frequently touted tariff revenue as a major source of federal income, claiming it could eventually replace the income tax. However, official and independent estimates of total revenue collected vary widely.
The ruling introduces fresh uncertainty for U.S. trade policy, particularly as the administration has repeatedly adjusted, paused, and reimposed tariffs in recent months.
While the decision curtails the president’s unilateral authority under IEEPA, it does not prevent Congress from authorizing tariffs through legislation. For now, however, the Supreme Court has drawn a firm line around executive power, reshaping the legal foundation of Trump’s signature economic strategy.
