The Supreme Court of the United States on Friday ruled that sweeping global tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump violated federal law, dealing a major setback to a central pillar of his economic and foreign policy agenda.
In a 6–3 decision, the court held that the president exceeded his authority by unilaterally imposing the duties without clear authorization from Congress.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, said the executive branch cannot claim unlimited power to impose tariffs.
“The president asserts the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope,” Roberts wrote, adding that such authority must be clearly granted by Congress.
The ruling represents one of the most significant legal defeats for the administration and comes after the conservative-leaning court had previously sided with the president in several emergency cases.
The administration relied on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1970s-era law allowing presidents to regulate imports during national emergencies.
However, the justices concluded that the statute does not explicitly authorize tariffs.
Roberts stated that when Congress grants tariff powers, it does so clearly and with limitations conditions absent in this case.
Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch joined the majority alongside the court’s liberal wing. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.
The court did not specify what should happen to more than $130 billion already collected from importers under the tariff regime. That issue is expected to be resolved in lower courts.
In his dissent, Kavanaugh warned that determining refunds could become “a mess,” given the scale and complexity of repayments.
Trump Criticises Decision
Trump reportedly described the ruling as “a disgrace,” maintaining that tariffs are essential to national prosperity.
His administration had argued that tariffs were necessary to protect the economy and strengthen negotiating leverage with trading partners.
The contested duties sometimes called “Liberation Day” tariffs raised import levies as high as 50% on some countries and up to 145% on Chinese goods in 2025.
Broader Economic and Legal Implications
Legal analysts say the decision underscores limits on presidential power in major economic matters and reinforces the principle that sweeping policy actions require congressional approval.
The ruling also leaves open critical questions about refund obligations and the future use of emergency powers in trade policy, ensuring continued legal and political battles in the months ahead
