The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a landmark 6–3 ruling striking down former President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), declaring that the 1977 law does not grant the president authority to levy broad import duties.
The majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, held that while IEEPA allows a president to “regulate” imports during a national emergency, it does not extend to imposing tariffs. The court emphasized that under the U.S. Constitution, the authority to levy taxes and tariffs rests with Congress, not the executive branch.
“Our task today is to decide only whether the power to ‘regulate … importation’ embraces the power to impose tariffs. It does not,” Roberts wrote, adding that the president must point to “clear congressional authorization” for such sweeping economic measures.
The decision marks one of the most significant setbacks for Trump since returning to office in January 2025. Despite a 6–3 conservative majority on the bench, three conservative justices — Roberts, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett — joined the court’s three liberal members in the majority.
In dissent, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, argued that the ruling does not prevent Trump from imposing similar tariffs under different statutory authorities. Kavanaugh wrote that the president may have “checked the wrong statutory box” by relying on IEEPA.
Trump reacted angrily to the ruling, calling it “terrible” and “totally defective,” and criticized members of the court. He signaled that his administration would pursue alternative legal avenues to maintain trade pressure and announced a new 10% global tariff under a different statutory authority.
The court’s majority also referenced the “major questions” doctrine, which requires clear congressional authorization for executive actions of vast economic and political significance. Roberts warned that accepting the administration’s interpretation would replace longstanding executive-legislative collaboration on trade policy with “unchecked presidential policymaking.”
The ruling stems from legal challenges brought by five small import businesses and 12 U.S. states, most led by Democratic governors. Industry groups welcomed the decision but warned of continued uncertainty as the administration explores alternative legal mechanisms, including national security-based tariff provisions and trade retaliation authorities.
The decision does not address whether billions of dollars in already collected tariffs — estimated by outside economists at over $175 billion — must be refunded. Kavanaugh acknowledged that any refund process could be complex and contentious.
Financial markets reacted with volatility as investors weighed the potential easing of inflationary pressures against uncertainty surrounding Trump’s next trade policy moves. While the court curtailed the use of IEEPA for tariffs, it left open the possibility that other statutory tools may still allow the administration to pursue significant trade measures.
