Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump’s Sweeping Emergency Tariffs in 6-3 Ruling

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday ruled that President Donald Trump exceeded his authority under federal law when he imposed sweeping tariffs on imports from around the world, a significant defeat for an administration that has made tariffs a centerpiece of its economic and foreign policy.

In a 6-3 decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the 1977 statute Trump invoked to justify the duties, does not give the president power to impose tariffs of the scope he claimed.

“Clear Congressional Authorization” Required

“The president asserts the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope,” Roberts wrote. “In light of the breadth, history, and constitutional context of that asserted authority, he must identify clear congressional authorization to exercise it.” The emergency authority the administration relied upon, the court said, “falls short.”

Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch, both Trump appointees, joined Roberts and the court’s three liberal justices in the majority. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.

Refund Question Unresolved

The ruling did not address what should happen to the more than $130 billion in tariffs already collected under the emergency orders, leaving importers and lower courts to sort out whether and how refunds might be paid.

The decision is arguably the most consequential loss the second Trump administration has suffered at the high court, which last year sided with the president in a series of emergency rulings on immigration, the removal of independent agency officials and spending cuts.

President Reacts

Trump learned of the decision in a note passed to him during a meeting with governors at the White House, according to a governor in the room, and left shortly afterward. At a news conference later Friday, he called the ruling “deeply disappointing” and said he was “ashamed of certain members of the court” for not having “the courage to do what’s right for our country.”

The administration has other trade statutes at its disposal, including provisions that allow tariffs after investigations into national security threats or unfair trade practices. Those tools generally involve more procedural steps and narrower scope than the emergency powers the court rejected.

Broader Implications

The case is likely to shape the balance of power between the White House and Congress on trade for years to come. The Constitution assigns Congress the power to lay duties and regulate commerce with foreign nations, though lawmakers have delegated some of that authority to the executive branch through a series of statutes over the past century.

Businesses that import goods, along with trading partners, had closely watched the case. The tariffs had raised costs for many U.S. companies and prompted retaliatory measures from several countries.