WASHINGTON, DC (LOOTPRESS) – In a significant legal setback for President Donald Trump, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Friday that his administration exceeded its authority by imposing broad tariffs under a law intended for national emergencies.
In a 6–3 decision, the justices found that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the president to enact sweeping import tariffs. The court concluded that Trump’s use of the statute to justify wide-ranging trade penalties went beyond the powers granted by Congress.
The ruling marks a rare defeat for the administration before a court with a conservative majority, particularly since Trump began his second term in January.
What the Decision Changes
The decision strikes down two major categories of tariffs:
- “Reciprocal” country-by-country tariffs, which included rates as high as 34% on imports from China and a 10% baseline on goods from most other nations.
- A 25% tariff on certain imports from Canada, China, and Mexico, which the administration said was aimed at pressuring those countries to curb fentanyl trafficking.
However, the ruling does not affect separate tariffs on steel and aluminum that were imposed under different trade laws.
Trump retains the option to pursue new tariffs through other statutory authorities.
Constitutional Limits Highlighted
The Constitution assigns tariff-setting power to Congress. While the emergency law allows a president to regulate international commerce in response to “unusual and extraordinary threats,” it does not explicitly mention tariffs.
Before Trump, no president had used the statute to impose import taxes.
Lower federal courts had already ruled against the administration in two consolidated cases, prompting both sides to seek a definitive judgment from the Supreme Court.
Businesses and States Challenged the Policy
The tariffs were contested by multiple companies, including wine importer V.O.S. Selections, pipe manufacturer Plastic Services and Products, and two educational toy firms. A coalition of states led by Oregon also filed suit.
According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the tariffs generated roughly $130 billion in revenue by mid-December. Trump has cited far higher figures when including projected gains tied to trade negotiations.
Broader Impact on Executive Power
The case echoes the court’s earlier skepticism toward unilateral executive actions, including its decision to block Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan under the “major questions doctrine,” which requires clear congressional approval for policies with sweeping national impact.
Friday’s ruling reinforces that standard, signaling limits on how far presidents can go in using emergency powers to reshape trade policy without explicit authorization from Congress.
