Unlikely Alliance Forms Against Tariff Authority (Image Credits: Unsplash)
Washington, D.C. – The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a sharp rebuke to President Donald Trump on Friday, ruling 6-3 that he exceeded his authority under a 1977 emergency law when imposing broad tariffs on imports from nearly every trading partner.[1][2]
Unlikely Alliance Forms Against Tariff Authority
The decision united an unusual mix of justices, including Trump appointees Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, with liberals Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson behind Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority opinion. Roberts emphasized that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant the president tariff-making power, a domain reserved for Congress under the Constitution.[2] He wrote, “Based on two words separated by 16 others in … IEEPA – ‘regulate’ and ‘importation’ – the President asserts the independent power to impose tariffs on imports from any country, of any product, at any rate, for any amount of time. Those words… cannot bear such weight.”[1]
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented. Kavanaugh argued that “regulate… importation” historically includes tariffs as a tool alongside quotas and embargoes, warning the ruling could force refunds in a “mess” for importers and consumers alike.[2] The splintered 6-3 vote applied the major questions doctrine, requiring explicit congressional approval for actions with vast economic impact.
- Majority: Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Barrett, Jackson
- Dissent: Kavanaugh (author), Thomas, Alito
Tariffs Targeted in Drug and Trade Crises
Trump invoked IEEPA after declaring national emergencies over fentanyl trafficking from China, Canada, and Mexico, as well as persistent U.S. trade deficits that he said hollowed out manufacturing. The tariffs included 25% duties on most Canadian and Mexican goods, 10-20% on Chinese imports tied to drugs, and “reciprocal” levies starting at 10% on goods from virtually all countries – rising to 145% on some Chinese products.[3]
These “Liberation Day” reciprocal tariffs and others affected trillions in trade, overriding agreements like USMCA. Challengers, including small businesses in cases Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump and V.O.S. Selections v. United States, argued IEEPA authorized blocking or regulating imports but not revenue-raising taxes.[2] Lower courts agreed, halting collections pending review.
| Tariff Type | Targets | Rates |
|---|---|---|
| Drug Trafficking | China, Canada, Mexico | 10-25% |
| Reciprocal/Deficit | Nearly all countries | 10-145% |
| Liberation Day | Global imports | 10-50% |
President Vows Quick Tariff Revival
Trump lashed out at the court in a White House news conference, calling the decision “deeply disappointing” and expressing shame over “certain members of the court” as “unpatriotic” and influenced by “foreign interests.”[4] He announced immediate action, signing orders for a 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act – limited to 150 days – and launching Section 301 probes into unfair practices.
Vice President JD Vance decried the ruling as “lawlessness,” while Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent insisted it targeted only IEEPA use, leaving other tariffs intact. Businesses like Scottish Gourmet celebrated relief from U.K. import costs, planning “Say Goodbye to Tariffs” promotions.[5]
Billions in Refunds Loom Amid Uncertainty
The Treasury collected over $160 billion from these tariffs through early 2026, with potential refunds now eyed by importers like Apple, which paid billions. Economists project removal could boost GDP by 0.3% long-term and spare households $1,000-$1,300 annually, though new measures might offset gains.[3]
Section 232 national security tariffs on steel and autos survive unaffected. Reactions split along party lines, with Democrats hailing congressional oversight and some Republicans pushing legislation to codify tariffs. The court remanded cases to the Court of International Trade without specifying remedies.[4]
Key Takeaways
- IEEPA limits presidents to non-tariff responses in emergencies; explicit congressional say required for taxes.
- Over $160 billion collected, refunds possible but litigious.
- Trump pivots to Sections 122 and 301, signaling ongoing trade battles.
This ruling reinforces Congress’s “power of the purse,” curbing executive overreach in trade while exposing vulnerabilities in America’s tariff toolkit. As new levies roll out, businesses and consumers brace for volatility – what adjustments will lawmakers make next? Share your thoughts in the comments.