The Supreme Court of the United States ruled by a 6–3 majority on Friday that President Trump exceeded his authority when he imposed broad tariffs on a range of countries. The ruling constitutes a significant blow to Trump’s foreign and economic policy agenda. In response, Trump sharply attacked the justices and emphasized that he has no intention of relinquishing his authority to impose tariffs.
While the authority to set tariffs and taxes is vested in the US Congress, Trump argued that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) grants the president unilateral authority to determine and impose tariffs, based on the claim that the United States is in a state of economic emergency. The ruling is among the few significant steps taken by the Supreme Court to limit the president’s executive powers during a term characterized by an unprecedented concentration of power in the White House, which has systematically worked to reduce constraints upon it and weaken the independent civil service.
In addition to the three liberal justices—Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—two additional conservative justices joined the majority opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts: Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, both appointed by Trump himself. For the president, tariffs have been a central tool in both his foreign and trade policy, and he used them as a coercive mechanism against allies and competitors alike, with the aim of altering their trade relations with the United States and as part of his declared policy of restoring and revitalizing American industry and manufacturing.
Although the ruling limits Trump’s ability to impose unilateral tariffs under the IEEPA, from the president’s perspective, he retains authorities that allow him to impose tariffs. Immediately following the decision, Trump announced the imposition of a series of sweeping tariffs (rather than varying rates by country as he had done previously) at a rate of 10%, later raising them to 15%, under a legal framework that permits the president to set tariffs of up to 15% for a period of up to 150 days without congressional approval.
This move has raised questions about the possibility of another legal challenge. The Supreme Court’s decision also carries significant economic implications and uncertainty regarding the future of the federal budget, which relies on the substantial revenues generated from tariffs. According to the pre-ruling budget plan, the tariffs were expected to generate approximately $3 trillion over the next nine years, and the decision jeopardizes at least half of that planned amount. In addition, there is a possibility that the administration may be required to pay refunds of more than $100 billion in tariff revenues to importers, although at this stage, the court has not issued any guidelines, nor is there an organized plan for implementing such a move. Trade agreements that have already been signed, according to US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, will continue to be taxed in accordance with the rates already established—some of which are even higher than the current rate.
The Supreme Court of the United States ruled by a 6–3 majority on Friday that President Trump exceeded his authority when he imposed broad tariffs on a range of countries. The ruling constitutes a significant blow to Trump’s foreign and economic policy agenda. In response, Trump sharply attacked the justices and emphasized that he has no intention of relinquishing his authority to impose tariffs.
While the authority to set tariffs and taxes is vested in the US Congress, Trump argued that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) grants the president unilateral authority to determine and impose tariffs, based on the claim that the United States is in a state of economic emergency. The ruling is among the few significant steps taken by the Supreme Court to limit the president’s executive powers during a term characterized by an unprecedented concentration of power in the White House, which has systematically worked to reduce constraints upon it and weaken the independent civil service.
In addition to the three liberal justices—Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—two additional conservative justices joined the majority opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts: Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, both appointed by Trump himself. For the president, tariffs have been a central tool in both his foreign and trade policy, and he used them as a coercive mechanism against allies and competitors alike, with the aim of altering their trade relations with the United States and as part of his declared policy of restoring and revitalizing American industry and manufacturing.
Although the ruling limits Trump’s ability to impose unilateral tariffs under the IEEPA, from the president’s perspective, he retains authorities that allow him to impose tariffs. Immediately following the decision, Trump announced the imposition of a series of sweeping tariffs (rather than varying rates by country as he had done previously) at a rate of 10%, later raising them to 15%, under a legal framework that permits the president to set tariffs of up to 15% for a period of up to 150 days without congressional approval.
This move has raised questions about the possibility of another legal challenge. The Supreme Court’s decision also carries significant economic implications and uncertainty regarding the future of the federal budget, which relies on the substantial revenues generated from tariffs. According to the pre-ruling budget plan, the tariffs were expected to generate approximately $3 trillion over the next nine years, and the decision jeopardizes at least half of that planned amount. In addition, there is a possibility that the administration may be required to pay refunds of more than $100 billion in tariff revenues to importers, although at this stage, the court has not issued any guidelines, nor is there an organized plan for implementing such a move. Trade agreements that have already been signed, according to US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, will continue to be taxed in accordance with the rates already established—some of which are even higher than the current rate.