US Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump’s Illegal Tariffs Against Trading Partners
US Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump’s Illegal Tariffs Against Trading Partners
In a 6–3 ruling issued Friday, the justices held that Trump exceeded his authority by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to roll out broad-based import duties, dealing a major setback to one of his most forceful economic initiatives.
The Supreme Court of the United States has struck down President Donald Trump’s attempt to impose sweeping tariffs on major U.S. trading partners under an emergency powers statute.
In a 6–3 ruling issued Friday, the justices held that Trump exceeded his authority by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to roll out broad-based import duties, dealing a major setback to one of his most forceful economic initiatives.
The majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, emphasised that the Constitution grants Congress, not the president, the authority to levy tariffs.
“The Framers gave that power to Congress alone,” Roberts wrote, adding that lawmakers would not be expected to surrender such authority through ambiguous statutory language or without explicit constraints.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.
The legal battle revolved around Trump’s use of IEEPA to justify his so-called “Liberation Day” tariffs, a policy that included a 10% baseline global tariff and steeper “reciprocal” duties targeting certain nations.
In April, Trump formally declared the U.S. trade deficit a national emergency, arguing that persistent imbalances posed a grave threat to the country’s economic stability.
Administration lawyers maintained that IEEPA, enacted in 1977, empowers a president to “regulate” importation during a declared national emergency.
They argued that regulating imports effectively encompasses the authority to impose tariffs.
However, the statute does not explicitly reference tariffs, a point that proved pivotal during oral arguments heard in November.
Several justices, including members of the court’s conservative bloc, questioned whether the law’s language could reasonably be interpreted to authorize what amounts to taxation powers traditionally reserved for Congress.
During arguments, members of the court pressed government lawyers on whether any previous president had relied on IEEPA to impose tariffs.
The administration conceded that no such precedent exists in the nearly five decades since the law’s enactment.
Some justices also raised concerns about the absence of clear limitations in the government’s interpretation of the statute, asking what safeguards would prevent expansive executive overreach if the court endorsed Trump’s position.
Lower courts had already blocked the tariffs before the case reached the high court.
A unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled earlier this year that the president does not possess “unbounded authority” under IEEPA to impose import duties.
That decision was later upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
The Justice Department had urged the Supreme Court to reinstate the tariffs, warning that denying such authority could leave the United States vulnerable to retaliatory trade measures without adequate defenses.
Challengers to the policy countered that trade deficits have existed for decades and do not constitute the kind of “unusual and extraordinary threat” required to trigger emergency powers under IEEPA.
They warned that allowing the president to continue imposing sweeping tariffs under the statute would significantly expand executive authority at Congress’s expense.
Friday’s decision reaffirms congressional control over tariff policy and narrows the scope of presidential authority under emergency economic laws, a ruling that could shape the limits of executive power in future trade disputes.
