Supreme Court Rules Against Trump’s Global Tariffs
The Supreme Court ruled on Friday that President Trump’s extensive global tariffs are illegal. This marks a significant legal setback for him in his second term and undermines a major trade initiative from the White House.
Chief Justice John Roberts, in a 6-3 majority opinion, stated that President Trump went beyond his authority by using emergency powers to impose tariffs on nearly every country. The Tax Foundation estimated these tariffs could generate roughly $1.5 trillion over the next decade, accounting for about 70% of Trump’s additional tariffs during this term.
The majority opinion was joined by Chief Justice Roberts, Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh expressed their dissent.
This ruling is notable as it is the first time the Supreme Court has overturned a Trump policy during his second term. While courts have generally given Trump considerable leeway in exercising executive power, the majority of justices opined that he overstepped by imposing such extensive tariffs without direct authorization from Congress.
President Trump implemented tariffs in two phases. In February 2025, he placed a 25% tariff on most imports from Canada and Mexico, along with a 10% tariff on Chinese products, citing fentanyl trafficking issues. Then, in April, marked as “Emancipation Day,” he rolled out a customary 10% tariff on imports from almost all countries, with even higher tariffs on nations labeled as trade violators.
Trump claimed that the fentanyl overdose crisis and an ongoing trade deficit constituted a national emergency, using this rationale to enact new trade policies under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which was established in 1977 to equip presidents with tools to address foreign emergencies.
The court dismissed this justification, with Roberts stating, “If Congress had intended to convey clear and extraordinary authority to impose tariffs, it would have done so expressly.” The ruling highlighted that no previous president had invoked the Tariff Imposition Act under IEEPA.
The decision raises questions about whether importers could be entitled to refunds. In his dissent, Kavanaugh cautioned that the refund process could become “chaotic.”
