The United States Supreme Court on Friday struck down a major portion of former President Donald Trump’s broad tariff agenda, ruling that the law underpinning his import duties did not authorize him to impose them, in a 6-3 decision.
Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the court’s opinion, while Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.
The ruling challenges a central pillar of Trump’s economic and foreign policy, under which he imposed sweeping tariffs on multiple countries without congressional approval. The court said his legal argument “would represent a transformative expansion of the President’s authority over tariff policy” and noted that no previous president had invoked the same statute to impose tariffs of comparable scale.
Trump relied on a novel interpretation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which permits the president to regulate imports or property transactions during national emergencies to address “unusual and extraordinary” threats. The administration argued that this authority allowed tariffs on foreign goods, including broad “reciprocal” duties and levies tied to alleged fentanyl trafficking.
The court’s majority rejected this reading, stating that the statute does not grant unilateral authority to levy tariffs and emphasizing the need for “clear congressional authorization” for extraordinary measures. The ruling did not clarify whether tariffs already paid under Trump-era rates would be refunded.
More Read
Trump has frequently framed tariffs as a tool to generate federal revenue and renegotiate trade deals. His administration estimated IEEPA-specific tariffs raised about $129 billion in 2025, though other assessments placed total U.S. tariff revenue between $200 billion and $289 billion. Trump had even floated using tariff proceeds to replace income taxes or issue $2,000 “tariff dividend” checks to Americans.
The Supreme Court decision comes after lower federal courts had previously deemed Trump’s IEEPA tariffs illegal. Analysts say the ruling may prompt a recalibration of U.S. trade policy and could complicate ongoing trade negotiations with partners affected by the duties.
Trump, who retook the White House last year, had framed the tariffs as a cornerstone of his economic policy, asserting they would hold foreign nations accountable for trade imbalances and illegal drug flows. Prior to the ruling, he warned that striking down the tariffs would be disastrous for the United States.
More Read
The decision underscores the judiciary’s role in limiting executive overreach in trade policy and reinforces Congress’s authority over tariff legislation, potentially reshaping how future administrations approach national security and economic measures.
The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) was enacted in 1977 to give the U.S. president authority to regulate international commerce during declared national emergencies, particularly to address unusual threats such as foreign aggression, terrorism, or economic crises. Historically, the law has been applied to control financial transactions, freeze foreign assets, and regulate imports linked to national security, but not to impose broad-based tariffs.
Former President Donald Trump began using IEEPA to justify sweeping import duties during his first term and again after retaking the presidency, arguing that the statute allowed him to levy tariffs without congressional approval. These included his “reciprocal” tariffs on nearly all trading partners and targeted duties aimed at countries allegedly involved in the trafficking of fentanyl into the United States.
Trump’s tariff policies were controversial domestically and internationally. Supporters argued they protected American industry, generated revenue, and gave leverage in trade negotiations, while critics warned they increased costs for U.S. businesses and consumers, strained diplomatic relations, and exceeded the president’s constitutional authority.
Previous legal challenges had already questioned the legality of IEEPA-based tariffs. Federal courts and appellate panels ruled that the statute did not explicitly grant the president authority to impose import duties of the magnitude enacted under Trump. Despite this, the tariffs remained in effect, generating significant federal revenue and shaping trade policy.
The Supreme Court’s ruling Friday marks a definitive rebuke of Trump’s expansive interpretation of executive power, reinforcing the principle that Congress retains primary authority over tariff legislation. It also sets a precedent limiting future presidents from invoking national emergency powers to impose unilateral economic measures without legislative authorization.
