WASHINGTON, United States — In a landmark 6–3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that many of former President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs were unlawful, dealing a significant blow to his trade policy and reshaping the legal limits of presidential authority on trade.
The case centered on Trump’s extensive use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to justify broad tariffs on imports from countries around the world.
The Supreme Court found that IEEPA does not grant the president authority to impose tariffs, saying that the Constitution assigns the power to levy taxes and duties — including tariffs — to Congress alone.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, noted that while IEEPA authorises the president to regulate economic activity in true national emergencies, it does not explicitly mention tariffs and cannot be stretched to give the executive branch unilateral taxing power.
As a result, the broad tariffs imposed under the statute — from so-called “reciprocal tariffs” to duties targeting major trading partners — have been struck down as illegal.
The decision, which unified justices from across the ideological spectrum on key points, marks a rare rebuke of Trump’s second‑term economic agenda.
It also affirms lower court rulings that challenged the legality of the tariffs and underscores constitutional boundaries between legislative and executive powers.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented, arguing that the president’s use of IEEPA to impose trade duties was permissible or should be upheld given historical practice and the broad language of the statute.
The ruling leaves unresolved questions about refunds for tariffs already collected under the now‑invalidated policies, with legal analysts suggesting potential claims from businesses and trade groups that paid the duties.
Former President Trump criticised the decision as a setback and described it as a “disgrace” at a White House event, signalling that the administration may explore alternative legal avenues or legislative authority to re‑impose trade duties in the future.
The Supreme Court’s decision reasserts Congress’s central role in taxation and trade policy and sets a powerful precedent limiting the scope of presidential action under emergency economic powers.
