(VIDEO) Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump’s Sweeping Tariffs in 6-3 Ruling

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday struck down President Donald Trump’s expansive tariffs imposed on imports from nearly every trading partner, ruling that he exceeded his authority under a 1977 law meant for national emergencies.

In a 6-3 decision, the justices held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the president to unilaterally impose tariffs. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.

The ruling invalidates a core pillar of Trump’s economic policy, including the widely publicized “Liberation Day” tariffs — a 10% across-the-board duty on imports from most countries, with higher rates on key partners like Canada (up to 35%), Mexico (25%), China, the European Union, Japan and South Korea. These measures, enacted via executive orders citing foreign economic threats as a national emergency, have generated more than $130 billion to $200 billion in revenue since implementation, according to estimates from the Tax Foundation and other analyses.

Roberts emphasized the limits of executive power in his opinion. “Based on two words separated by 16 others in … IEEPA—’regulate’ and ‘importation’—the President asserts the independent power to impose tariffs on imports from any country, of any product, at any rate, for any amount of time,” he wrote. The court agreed with challengers, including businesses and states like California, that such broad authority requires explicit congressional approval, not emergency declarations.

The decision affirms lower court rulings and sends related cases back to the U.S. Court of International Trade to address remedies, including potential refunds to importers who paid the duties. Those costs were largely passed on to consumers and businesses through higher prices, with studies estimating an average household impact of around $1,751 last year in states like California.

The ruling marks a rare instance where the conservative-led court has curbed Trump’s use of executive authority, echoing prior decisions limiting broad presidential actions. It does not affect all tariffs — those imposed under other statutes, such as Section 232 national security tariffs or Section 301 unfair trade practices, remain intact — but it wipes out the sweeping IEEPA-based ones central to Trump’s “America First” trade strategy.

The White House reacted swiftly. President Trump reportedly called the decision a “disgrace” in private, according to sources cited by multiple outlets. Aides indicated plans to invoke alternative trade authorities to reimpose similar measures quickly, potentially through existing laws allowing targeted tariffs. Trump is scheduled to hold a news conference Friday afternoon to address the ruling directly.

Market reaction was positive in the immediate aftermath, with U.S. stocks rising as investors welcomed reduced uncertainty over broad trade disruptions. Economists noted that removing the tariffs could shield the economy from further inflationary pressures and protect taxpayers, though uncertainty lingers over potential replacements. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated that, absent new actions, the ruling could increase projected deficits by about $2 trillion over the next decade by eliminating tariff revenue.

The tariffs stemmed from Trump’s long-standing view that unfair trade practices by foreign nations justified aggressive countermeasures. Supporters argued they protected domestic industries, boosted manufacturing and forced better trade deals. Critics, including affected businesses, importers and some allies, contended they functioned as a tax on Americans, raised costs for goods and strained international relations.

States like California, which filed lawsuits challenging the tariffs, hailed the decision. Gov. Gavin Newsom called for immediate refund checks — with interest — to families and businesses, arguing the duties illegally raised costs passed on to consumers. Ports in Los Angeles and other hubs had seen shifts in import patterns due to the duties.

The case consolidated challenges, including Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump and V.O.S. Selections v. United States, highlighting how the tariffs affected everyday products from toys to wine. Importers argued the emergency declaration stretched IEEPA beyond its intent, originally designed for sanctions against hostile foreign actors rather than broad trade policy.
Dissenters, led by conservative justices, warned of practical fallout. Kavanaugh suggested the ruling might create a “mess” requiring billions in refunds while not permanently limiting future presidential tariff authority under other laws.

The decision arrives amid ongoing global trade tensions and domestic economic debates. It underscores congressional primacy in taxation and commerce, as Article I of the Constitution grants Congress the power to lay and collect duties.
For now, the ruling halts the most sweeping elements of Trump’s tariff regime, forcing the administration to pivot. Whether new measures emerge — and how trading partners respond — will shape U.S. trade policy in the coming months.

As the administration weighs next steps, businesses and consumers await clarity on import costs and supply chains. The court’s message was clear: emergency powers have limits, even for a president pursuing signature priorities.