The U.S. Supreme Court invalidated President Donald Trump’s expansive international tariffs by a 6-3 ruling, halting a principal component of his administration’s trade policy and curtailing presidential authority over import duties. The majority found that the White House exceeded its legal bounds, impacting both market expectations and major trading relationships.
The decision overturns tariffs that were unilaterally enforced through the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a law the administration had relied upon to justify sweeping levies on imports. The court clarified that while IEEPA permits the president to manage certain aspects of foreign commerce during emergencies, the statute does not provide explicit congressional permission to implement tariffs, a responsibility that rests with Congress under the U.S. Constitution.
Justices referenced the “major questions” doctrine, requiring executive actions with substantial economic effects to be clearly authorized by Congress. This interpretation follows previous rulings restraining broad executive powers invoked under earlier administrations. While the administration defended the tariffs as essential for national security and to address trade deficits, the court determined that the use of IEEPA in this context would infringe upon legislative prerogatives.
As a result, tariffs labeled “reciprocal” and those applying 25% duties on products from China, Canada, and Mexico have been nullified. These tariffs generated between $130 billion and $175 billion in federal revenue, funds that may become subject to reimbursement for affected importers. Measures under other legislative authorities, such as targeted steel and aluminum tariffs, are not altered by the decision.
The majority included Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, and the three liberal justices, while Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.
In response, administration officials signaled plans to explore alternative legislative avenues, including the 1962 Trade Act, to reestablish certain tariffs. However, this judgment represents a significant legal constraint on the president’s capacity to impose trade restrictions by executive action.
