Photo Credit: Getty Images
The US Supreme Court has struck down a significant portion of President Donald Trump's sweeping tariff program, ruling that the law he relied on did not give him the authority to impose the import taxes.
In a 6-3 decision delivered on Friday, the justices upheld earlier lower-court rulings that found Trump overstepped his powers by using the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to justify the tariffs. The ruling marks one of the most consequential legal setbacks to Trump's economic policy and could have wide-ranging implications for global trade and presidential authority.
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said the president must point to clear congressional authorization to justify such an extraordinary assertion of tariff power, something the court concluded Trump had not done. The court emphasized that when Congress intends to delegate tariff authority, it typically does so explicitly and with defined limits.
The majority opinion was joined by the court's three liberal justices as well as two conservative justices appointed by Trump, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.
At the centre of the case was Trump's aggressive use of IEEPA, a law designed to allow presidents to regulate economic transactions during national emergencies. His administration argued the statute's language allowing the president to regulate importation of foreign property gave him the power to impose tariffs. But challengers, including businesses and a group of mostly Democratic-led states, countered that the law never mentions tariffs and was never intended to hand the president broad, unilateral taxing authority.
The Supreme Court agreed, warning that accepting the administration's interpretation would intrude on Congress's constitutional role over taxation and violate the "major questions" doctrine. That legal principle requires clear congressional approval for executive actions of vast economic and political significance.
Trump had framed the tariffs as a tool to combat issues such as drug trafficking and trade imbalances, and as a way to boost US manufacturing. His measures targeted goods from nearly every country, expanding dramatically during what he branded as "Liberation Day" tariff announcements.
The duties sparked sharp backlash from businesses and trade partners, who warned the policy would drive up costs and disrupt supply chains. The ruling now opens the door to potential refund battles over tariffs already collected, though the court did not directly address whether repayments must occur.