Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump’s Global Tariffs
The Supreme Court has recently nullified President Donald Trump’s global tariffs. Contrary to popular belief, the case *Learning Resources v. Trump* doesn’t indicate a definitive limitation of presidential power. In fact, Trump could potentially revive many of these tariffs in the coming year using different legislation. There’s also the need for Learning Resources to address criticisms from the left regarding the judiciary and the Constitution, all while stressing that cooperation between the president and Congress is essential in handling foreign relations.
Chief Justice John Roberts, leading the 6-3 majority, emphasized two key constitutional principles. According to him, only Congress has the authority to impose tariffs and taxes, referencing Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution which states that “Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, charges, and excises” and “regulate commerce with foreign countries.” Moreover, Congress can delegate some of its powers to the president, as it has done with various trade laws. The judges did not fundamentally disagree on these points.
The justices, however, diverged on whether Congress empowered the president to impose the global instant tariffs he enacted last year. On Emancipation Day in April 2025, Trump invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977, creating universal tariffs of at least 10% on imports, including those from allies like Canada and Mexico, and adversaries like China. In a rare coalition, Roberts joined three conservative justices and three liberal justices to argue that IEEPA does not grant the executive branch the authority to set tariffs.
The majority opinion restricted the interpretation of IEEPA too narrowly. This act provides the president the power to investigate, prevent, and “regulate, direct, compel, nullify, nullify, prevent, and prohibit” economic transactions with foreign nations during an “unusual threat” to U.S. national security, foreign policy, or economy.
President Trump defined the significant trade deficit as a national emergency, yet the court chose not to engage with this aspect of his tariff order. Ultimately, the court concluded that, since Congress omitted the term “tariff” from IEEPA’s powers, it did not confer this authority to the president.
Roberts noted, “The President claims extraordinary power to impose tariffs without limitations on amount, duration, or scope. Given the historical and constitutional context of that power, the President must demonstrate Congress’s clear authority to enact it.” He further clarified that the scope of IEEPA’s mandate to “regulate imports” falls short, as the act lacks mention of tariffs or duties.
This interpretation disregards historical use of IEEPA and its predecessor, the Trade with Enemy Act of 1917. Courts have traditionally understood that regulating trade does encompass the authority to impose complete embargoes on adversarial countries such as Cuba, Iran, and North Korea.
Despite the narrow ruling, this doesn’t impede all pathways for Trump’s economic plans. The decision simply clarifies that tariffs cannot be imposed under the IEEPA Act alone. Still, several trade laws exist that give the president explicit powers to enact tariffs.
These laws, often referred to as Section 232, Section 301, and Super 301, authorize the executive to impose reciprocal tariffs in response to foreign tariffs, sanction unfair trade practices, and manage surges in certain imports. The Supreme Court did not challenge these legislative powers, allowing Trump to rally many tariffs under other laws.
In addition to the technical aspects of trade law and their implications for Trump’s policies, this ruling also imparts significant lessons on the constitutional framework.
Firstly, it rebuts the criticisms from the left that assert the Supreme Court—particularly its conservative members—is merely endorsing Trump’s policies. In this case, Gorsuch and Barrett, both Trump appointees, along with Roberts, upheld a decision against Trump’s tariffs in collaboration with three justices appointed by previous administrations. Their voting was based solely on the absence of the term “tariff” in the IEEPA, rather than any personal biases towards or against Trump or his policies.
Secondly, the ruling counters the left’s claims that the U.S. is veering into authoritarianism. It reaffirms that the separation of powers remains intact.
As per the Constitution, only Congress possesses the authority to levy duties and taxes. While this power can be delegated to the president, Congress retains overall control, even in silent statutes. Trump insisted that IEEPA granted him authority to unilaterally invoke tariffs. However, should tariffs be reinstated, they must comply with other trade laws enacted by Congress.
Looking forward, this ruling points toward potential future collaboration between the president and Congress. Justices Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh suggested a broader interpretation of IEEPA, advocating for presidential discretion in foreign policy and national security. Despite the president’s constitutional responsibilities in these areas, the Constitution reserves essential tools of international economic policy for Congress.
To effectively pursue national interests—like enhancing influence in the Western Hemisphere and countering China’s growing threat—the president and Congress must collaborate to ensure economic policy plays a cohesive role in the broader U.S. strategy on the global stage.
