In a decision that redraws the fault lines between the White House and Capitol Hill, the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down former President Donald Trump’s sweeping global tariffs, ruling that he overstepped his authority by invoking a law designed for national emergencies.
The 6–3 verdict, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, found that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not hand a president a blank cheque to impose tariffs. The Constitution, the Court underscored, gives Congress—not the executive—the power to levy taxes and duties.
At the heart of the dispute was Trump’s reliance on IEEPA, a 1977 statute historically used to freeze assets or sanction hostile actors. No president before him had used it to impose tariffs of this scale. Roberts wrote that while the law allows a president to “regulate” imports during a national emergency, that language cannot be stretched to mean the unilateral imposition of tariffs. Extraordinary economic power, the majority held, requires clear congressional authorization. It wasn’t there.
Trump reacted with fury, branding the ruling “terrible” and insisting he has other legal tools at his disposal. Within hours, he signaled a fresh 10% global tariff under a different statutory route—an indication that the trade wars he reignited during his second term are far from over.
The ruling marks the sharpest judicial rebuke Trump has faced since returning to office in 2025. Although the Court’s conservative majority has often sided with expansive presidential authority, this time three conservative justices—Roberts, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett—joined the liberal bloc comprising Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
In dissent, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, argued that the decision hinged more on statutory choice than substance. In his view, the president may still pursue similar tariffs under alternative laws. The majority, however, warned that endorsing Trump’s interpretation would bulldoze the long-standing balance between executive initiative and legislative control over trade.
The financial markets responded with jittery swings as investors weighed the prospect of cooling inflation against the uncertainty of new tariff strategies. Business groups offered cautious relief, though many cautioned that fresh legal manoeuvres could prolong instability.
Notably, the Court sidestepped the messy question of refunds. Billions of dollars collected under the invalidated tariffs may now be subject to litigation. How—or whether—importers will be reimbursed remains unresolved.
Trump had framed his tariffs as a shield against a ballooning trade deficit, which reached record levels even after the duties were imposed. He described them as essential leverage in negotiations with trading partners and as a corrective to what he called decades of unfair treatment. Critics countered that the measures rattled allies, disrupted supply chains and injected volatility into global markets.
By invoking IEEPA to justify across-the-board tariffs, Trump tested the boundaries of emergency powers. The Court’s ruling places a firm constitutional marker: emergency statutes cannot be reimagined into instruments of sweeping trade policy without Congress explicitly saying so.
The judgment does not end the tariff saga. It does, however, draw a bright line around presidential power—reminding future administrations that even in matters of economic brinkmanship, the separation of powers is not a negotiable tariff.
