The Supreme Court struck down President Trump’s sweeping tariffs Friday in a 6-3 ruling that dealt a significant defeat to a cornerstone of his economic agenda. The court found that Trump’s attempt to invoke the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act to justify the levies exceeded his constitutional authority, with the justices noting that Congress, not the president, holds the power to impose tariffs.
Two of the three justices Trump appointed joined the majority opinion, fracturing the conservative court bloc. The ruling leaves unresolved whether companies and individuals who paid the tariffs can recover the more than $133 billion the Treasury collected under the emergency powers law, setting the stage for what one dissenting justice predicted could be years of litigation.
How the court reached this decision
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion that Trump’s attempt to use IEEPA—a law containing no authorization for tariffs and designed for seizing foreign assets and blocking transactions during national crises—lacked any valid legal foundation. “The fact that no President has ever found such power in IEEPA is strong evidence that it does not exist,” Roberts wrote.
The court reiterated that the Constitution reserves tariff power to Congress, not the executive. “The Constitution ‘very clearly’ gives Congress, not the president, the power to impose taxes, including tariffs,” the justices noted in their opinion.
Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented. Kavanaugh argued that the tariffs were lawful as written, though he acknowledged the unresolved complications ahead. “The tariffs at issue here may or may not be wise policy. But as a matter of text, history, and precedent, they are clearly lawful,” Kavanaugh wrote.
The scope of Trump’s tariff campaign
Trump had deployed IEEPA to justify tariffs affecting most of the world’s major economies. Early in his term, he imposed levies on Mexico, Canada, and China, claiming a national emergency over undocumented immigration and drug trafficking. In April, he announced what he called “reciprocal” tariffs of up to 50% on goods from dozens of countries, plus a baseline 10% tariff on most others.
Trump also cited the law to impose tariffs on Brazilian imports, invoking the criminal prosecution of former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, and on India, over that country’s purchases of Russian oil.
The Treasury collected more than $133 billion from the import taxes Trump imposed under IEEPA as of December, federal data showed. Other tariffs Trump imposed relied on different justifications and remain in effect, affecting specific sectors including steel, aluminum, automobiles, and furniture.
The refund question remains unresolved
The Supreme Court did not address whether companies and individuals who paid the tariffs would be eligible for refunds. That gap leaves a significant opening: companies including the big-box retailer Costco have already begun filing suits in lower courts seeking refunds.
Justice Kavanaugh noted in his dissent that the refund process would likely be complicated. “The Court says nothing today about whether, and if so how, the Government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers. But that process is likely to be a ‘mess,’ as was acknowledged at oral argument,” he wrote.
Trump predicted the uncertainty would result in years of litigation. Ordinary consumers who paid higher prices due to tariffs but did not directly import goods are unlikely to benefit from any refund system; recoveries would most likely go to the companies that paid the import duties directly.
Trump’s promise of new tariffs
Trump responded sharply to the decision, calling the six justices voting for it “unpatriotic,” “disloyal,” and “a disgrace to our nation.” He said foreign countries were celebrating the ruling but predicted the celebration would be short-lived.
“There are methods, practices, statutes and authorities” available to the administration that “are even stronger than the IEEPA tariffs,” Trump said. He pledged to sign an executive order imposing a new 10% global tariff to replace the struck-down levies. That new tax would face a 150-day limit under existing federal law, though Congress could extend it if it chooses to do so.
Business advocates hail the ruling
We Pay the Tariffs, an advocacy group for small businesses harmed by the import duties, called the decision a “tremendous victory.” The group’s leader, Dan Anthony, said member companies had taken loans just to stay operational, frozen hiring, canceled expansion plans, and watched “their life savings drain away to pay tariff bills that weren’t in any budget or business plan.”
“Today, the Supreme Court has validated what we’ve been saying all along: These tariffs were unlawful from the start,” Anthony said.