US Supreme Court strikes down Trump’s global tariffs | Donald Trump News
Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump’s Tariffs
The U.S. Supreme Court has invalidated President Donald Trump’s extensive tariffs, ruling that he overstepped his authority by invoking a law designed for national emergencies. This decision marks a significant legal setback for Trump and could have wide-ranging effects on the global economy.
The Court’s ruling, issued on Friday, was a response to challenges from businesses affected by the tariffs and 12 states, primarily governed by Democrats. In a 6-3 decision led by Chief Justice John Roberts, the justices upheld a lower court’s finding that Trump’s use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) exceeded the powers granted to the president.
Roberts emphasized that the president must have “clear congressional authorization” to impose such tariffs. “He cannot,” Roberts stated, citing a precedent that underscores the exclusive constitutional authority of Congress to impose taxes, including tariffs.
This ruling is the first major legal issue from Trump’s agenda to reach the Supreme Court, which he influenced by appointing three justices during his first term.
Justice Samuel Alito, Justice Clarence Thomas, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh dissented. Kavanaugh argued that while the wisdom of the tariffs is debatable, they are legally sound. He noted, however, that the Court did not address the potential refunds for businesses that have paid billions in tariffs. Many companies, including Costco, are awaiting judicial decisions on these refunds, a process Kavanaugh described as potentially complicated.
Following the ruling, economists from the Penn-Wharton Budget Model estimated that Trump’s tariffs, which have not generated collection data since mid-December, accrued over $175 billion. This amount will likely need to be refunded due to the Supreme Court’s decision against the IEEPA-based tariffs.
Historically, the Constitution grants Congress—not the president—the power to levy taxes and tariffs. However, Trump was the first president to use IEEPA to unilaterally impose tariffs on nearly all U.S. trading partners without congressional approval. While some additional tariffs unrelated to this case remain valid, they account for approximately one-third of the revenue from the Trump administration’s tariffs.
Trump previously characterized these tariffs as essential for U.S. economic security, claiming that without them, the U.S. would be vulnerable to exploitation by other nations. In November, he remarked that other countries “would laugh at us” if not for his tariff policies.
In the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling, Trump signaled he would consider alternate strategies to maintain as many tariffs as possible, promising a “game two” plan should he lose. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent indicated that the administration might pursue other legal avenues to justify retaining tariffs, including those addressing national security threats and retaliatory tariffs against unfair trade practices.
Despite these possibilities, experts caution that alternatives may lack the speed and breadth of the IEEPA framework, complicating the administration’s ability to replicate the tariffs effectively.
