The US Supreme Court on Friday struck down President Donald Trump’s sweeping global tariffs, ruling that he violated federal law by unilaterally imposing import duties under emergency powers without explicit authorisation from Congress.
In a 6–3 decision, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the tariffs, introduced under a 1977 emergency statute, exceeded the authority granted to the president.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, said the administration had claimed “extraordinary power” to impose tariffs of “unlimited amount, duration, and scope” without clear backing from lawmakers.
“In light of the breadth, history, and constitutional context of that asserted authority, he must identify clear congressional authorisation to exercise it,” Roberts wrote.
The ruling represents a significant legal setback for Trump, whose trade policy has centred heavily on tariffs as a tool to reshape global trade relations and address perceived imbalances. The decision is among the most consequential defeats his administration has sustained at the court, which in recent terms has often sided with the White House in high-profile disputes.
Legal basis challenged
The case focused on Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977, a law that allows the president to regulate certain economic transactions during a declared national emergency. The administration argued that the statute permitted the imposition of tariffs as part of regulating imports during emergencies.
However, the court disagreed, noting that while previous presidents had invoked IEEPA dozens of times — primarily to impose sanctions or restrict financial transactions — none had used it to levy broad-based import taxes.
Under the US Constitution, the power to levy tariffs rests with Congress. Over the decades, Congress has delegated limited tariff authority to presidents under specific trade statutes, often subject to procedural requirements and defined circumstances. The court found that the emergency law cited by the administration did not provide the clear and specific authorisation necessary to justify the sweeping measures.
Financial and policy implications
The ruling does not immediately clarify the fate of more than $130 billion in tariffs that have already been collected under the disputed measures. The court did not provide guidance on whether those funds must be refunded or how existing trade arrangements might be affected.
Legal analysts say further litigation may determine the financial consequences, particularly for importers that paid the duties.
The decision also does not prevent a president from imposing tariffs under other statutory authorities, such as trade laws that allow duties following national security investigations or unfair trade findings. However, those routes generally involve more procedural safeguards and narrower scopes than the emergency powers invoked in this case.
Senior administration officials have previously indicated they would seek to maintain elements of the tariff framework through alternative legal channels if necessary.
