Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump Emergency Tariffs in Major Rebuke

The ruling invalidates the so-called "reciprocal" tariffs that Trump announced on what he called "Liberation Day" in April 2025, which imposed duties ranging from 10 to 50 percent on key trading partners such as India and Brazil, and as high as 145 percent on China.

HOME I I HI TECH NEWS I SPORTS I CONTACT

Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump Emergency Tariffs in Major Rebuke

Marc Kennedy - National-Politics
Tell Us USA News Network

WASHINGTON - The United States Supreme Court delivered a historic and stinging defeat to President Donald Trump on Friday, ruling 6-3 that his sweeping global tariffs were illegal, striking down one of the most consequential economic policies of his second term.

Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion, concluding that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act — the 1977 law Trump invoked to justify placing import duties on goods from virtually every country on earth — does not grant the president the authority to impose tariffs. Trump was the first president in the law's nearly 50-year history to attempt to use it in such a manner.

"IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties," Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. "The Government points to no statute in which Congress used the word 'regulate' to authorize taxation. And until now no President has read IEEPA to confer such power."

The ruling invalidates the so-called "reciprocal" tariffs that Trump announced on what he called "Liberation Day" in April 2025, which imposed duties ranging from 10 to 50 percent on key trading partners such as India and Brazil, and as high as 145 percent on China. The court did not, however, strike down tariffs Trump imposed through other legal authorities, meaning roughly a third of his tariff regime remains in place for now.

The decision was a rare and significant rebuke of the Trump administration by a Supreme Court that has largely sided with the White House in emergency rulings over the past year on immigration, government spending cuts, and the firing of federal agency heads. It marks the first time the high court issued a final ruling on the underlying legality of a major Trump policy.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented. Kavanaugh, in his dissenting opinion, argued that tariffs are a traditional tool used to regulate importation — a power the IEEPA does explicitly grant — and warned that the ruling's short-term impact "could be substantial," particularly regarding the potentially chaotic process of refunding more than $175 billion in tariffs already collected.

The three liberal justices in the majority — Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson — agreed with the outcome but took a different route to get there. Kagan wrote that ordinary principles of statutory interpretation were sufficient to strike down the tariffs, without needing to rely on the "major questions doctrine" that Roberts invoked.

Trump received word of the ruling while meeting with a group of governors at the White House. According to a governor present in the room, upon reading the note he muttered "that's a disgrace" and then left shortly after.

At a press conference held at the White House on Friday afternoon, the president was blunt and combative. He called the ruling "deeply disappointing" and said he was "absolutely ashamed" of the justices who voted against him. He went further, labeling those justices a "disgrace to our nation" and accusing them of being "very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution."

"It is my opinion that the court has been swayed by foreign interests and a political movement that is far smaller than people would ever think," Trump told reporters.

Despite the defeat, Trump moved quickly to signal defiance. Within hours of the ruling, he announced he would impose a new 10 percent across-the-board global tariff using Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 — a different legal authority from the one the court struck down — effective immediately. He also said he would pursue additional tariffs under Section 301, which covers unfair trade practices. He vowed to go in an "even stronger" direction on tariffs and insisted he did not need Congress to act, though he also acknowledged he would ask Congress for support and expected to get it.

The ruling is expected to set off a massive wave of refund litigation. Companies including Costco, Revlon, and portions of the Toyota Group had already filed lawsuits in anticipation of the decision, seeking to recover billions of dollars in duties paid. The Supreme Court's opinion did not lay out a process for how refunds would be handled, leaving that battle to the lower courts.

Democratic leaders were quick to celebrate. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries called it "a big victory for the American people and another crushing defeat for the wannabe King." Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called it "a win for the wallets of every American consumer."

Some Republicans also quietly welcomed the decision. Representative Don Bacon of Nebraska praised the ruling as a vindication of the Constitution's separation of powers, writing that the court had correctly affirmed Congress's authority over tariff policy. House Speaker Mike Johnson said Congress and the administration would work together in the coming weeks to determine the best path forward.

Legal scholars noted that Friday's decision represents the clearest signal yet that the Supreme Court is prepared to draw limits around Trump's use of executive emergency powers. Justice Neil Gorsuch, in a concurring opinion, issued what amounted to a pointed appeal to the broader federal government to return to the business of legislating through Congress rather than bypassing it through executive declarations.

The economic fallout from the ruling remains to be seen. Analysts noted that prices are unlikely to drop overnight, as many companies absorbed tariff costs rather than passing them directly to consumers. A Tax Foundation economist estimated that the tariffs still in effect after the ruling would still amount to a $400 annual tax increase per household in 2026.