Supreme Court strikes down most of Trump’s tariffs in a major blow to the president
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court dealt a blow to President Donald Trump, ruling Friday that he exceeded his authority by imposing drastic tariffs using a law reserved for a national emergency.
The justices, divided 6-3, ruled that Trump’s aggressive approach to tariffs on products entering the United States from around the world was not permitted under a 1977 law called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
The ruling invalidates many, but not all, of Trump’s tariffs.
Follow us for live updates
Speaking at the White House, Trump harshly criticized the Supreme Court majority, calling the decision a “disgrace to our” nation and the justices in the majority as “highly unpatriotic and disloyal to the Constitution,” while suggesting they were “influenced by foreign interests.”
Trump’s ability to impose tariffs using other laws is not affected by the ruling, and Trump has said he plans to use those authorities to impose new duties globally.
On Friday evening, Trump said on social media that he had signed a 10% global tariff, which would be a cut for almost all foreign countries. The White House described the new temporary tariff as being under Trump’s authority in Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 and will begin at 12:01 a.m. ET on Tuesday.
Despite Trump’s rhetoric that the tariffs would benefit the economy, stocks rebounded following the decision’s announcement.
The decision was written by Chief Justice John Roberts, who was joined by three liberal justices and two conservative colleagues, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, in the majority.
“The President claims extraordinary authority to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope,” Roberts wrote. But the Trump administration “is not pointing to any legislation” in which Congress has previously stated that IEEPA terms could apply to tariffs, he added.
As such, “we consider that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs,” Roberts wrote.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh and Samuel Alito dissented.
It’s a rare setback for the Supreme Court administration, which has had a 6-3 conservative majority since Trump began his second term in January 2025.
Business owners who had to pay the rates and challenged them in court expressed relief at the decision.
“These new tariffs were arbitrary, unpredictable and bad for business,” Victor Schwartz, who runs New York-based wine and spirits importer VOS Selections, said in a statement.
“Fortunately, courts at all levels have recognized these duties for what they were: unconstitutional government overreach,” he added.
The decision does not affect all of Trump’s tariffs, leaving in place those he imposed on steel and aluminum using different laws, for example. But it is shaking up its prices in two categories. One of them concerns country-by-country or “reciprocal” tariffs, which range from 34% for China to 10% for the rest of the world. The other is a 25% tariff that Trump imposed on some goods from Canada, China and Mexico for what the administration said was a failure to stem the flow of fentanyl.
Businesses that had to pay the tariffs could seek reimbursement from the Department of Treasury. Hundreds of people have already filed complaints.
The court did not directly address that issue, but Kavanaugh, disagreeing, said the effect on the U.S. Treasury could be significant.
“The Court says nothing today about whether, and if so how, the government should return the billions of dollars it collected from importers,” he wrote.
Kavanaugh also noted that the decision “is not likely to materially restrict presidential tariff authority in the future,” outside of the context of IEEPA.
We Pay the Tariffs, a group of small businesses opposed to Trump’s tariffs, immediately called for a “full, prompt and automatic” refund process.
“Small businesses cannot afford to wait months or years while bureaucratic delays occur, nor can they afford costly lawsuits simply to recoup money that was illegally collected from them in the first place,” Dan Anthony, the group’s executive director, said in a statement.
The Constitution states that the power to set tariffs is vested in Congress. But Trump used IEEPA, which doesn’t specifically mention tariffs but allows the president to “regulate” imports and exports when he believes there is an emergency due to an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to the nation.
Before Trump, no president had ever used this law to tax imports. Lower courts ruled against the Trump administration in two related cases that were consolidated, with both sides asking the Supreme Court to make a final decision.
The high-stakes case highlighted a court that was skeptical of President Joe Biden’s unilateral use of executive power, including his attempt to cancel billions of dollars in student debt. The court blocked that proposal, citing what has been called the “major issues doctrine,” which says Congress must explicitly authorize policies that have a major impact domestically.
In Friday’s ruling, Roberts cited the doctrine, although that part of his ruling did not garner a majority. The three liberal justices, who previously dissented when the court ruled against Biden on those grounds, said the tariffs were prohibited for other reasons.
In addition to VOS, several companies have filed lawsuits over tariffs, including Plastic Services and Products, a pipe and fittings company, and two companies that sell educational toys. A coalition of states led by Oregon also filed suit.
As of mid-December, IEEPA tariffs had raised about $130 billion, according to the latest available data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Trump has touted much higher numbers, as much as $3 trillion, when factoring in trade deals negotiated by his administration.
