In a 6–3 decision, the court ruled that Trump exceeded his authority when he used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose broad-based tariffs under a statute intended for genuine national emergencies. The majority held that taxes on imports require congressional approval, rejecting the administration’s argument that emergency powers gave the president wide latitude to act unilaterally.
“Deeply disappointing” decision
Trump reacted angrily, calling the judgment “deeply disappointing” and branding the justices who voted against him — including Neil M. Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, both of whom he nominated — as “fools” and a “disgrace to our nation.”
In remarks at the White House, he portrayed the ruling as a technical obstacle rather than a definitive rejection of his trade strategy. “The end result is going to get us more money,” he said, vowing to reimpose tariffs through alternative legal channels.
Within hours, Trump signed an executive order invoking a 1974 trade statute to introduce a new 10% tariff on global imports. Under that law, such levies can remain in effect for up to 150 days without congressional approval. Any extension would require lawmakers’ consent.
Pressed on whether the tariffs would expire after 150 days, Trump responded: “We have a right to do pretty much what we want to do.”
What the ruling covers — and what it does not
The court’s decision specifically addressed Trump’s so-called “Liberation Day” tariffs imposed under IEEPA. It does not invalidate narrower, country- or product-specific tariffs enacted under other trade laws.
Legal analysts say the ruling draws a clear line between emergency executive action and Congress’s constitutional authority over taxation and trade. Justice Gorsuch, siding with the court’s liberals, wrote that while bypassing Congress may seem expedient in times of perceived urgency, major policies — particularly those involving tariffs and taxes — must involve the legislative branch.
Tariffs at the centre of Trump’s economic identity
For years, Trump has framed tariffs as a cornerstone of his “America First” agenda, arguing they boost domestic manufacturing, protect U.S. jobs and generate federal revenue. On the campaign trail, he has repeatedly presented sweeping levies as the economic engine of his policy platform.
Critics, however, contend that tariffs function as taxes on imported goods — typically calculated as a percentage of a product’s value — and are paid by companies bringing goods into the country. Many economists argue that these costs are often passed on to U.S. businesses and consumers in the form of higher prices.
Recent polling reflects public scepticism. A Pew Research survey this month found that six in 10 Americans oppose tariff increases, with just 37% expressing support.
Political fallout and legal pivot
The ruling arrives in the heat of an election year, complicating Trump’s economic messaging at a time when Republicans are urging him to focus on inflation and growth. Some within his party have expressed unease over the broader economic impact of prolonged trade disputes.
Democrats quickly seized on the decision. Senator Elizabeth Warren argued that Americans should be refunded for costs incurred under what she called “chaotic tariffs,” while California Governor Gavin Newsom described the policy as an illegal tax that has burdened consumers and businesses.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta said the decision ends “months of chaos” that hurt farmers and manufacturers in the state, which he claimed faced projected losses exceeding $25 billion.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, however, insisted the ruling does not spell the end of Trump’s trade agenda. In a speech in Texas, he said the court merely restricted the use of IEEPA and did not invalidate tariffs enacted under other statutes.
Plan B: Alternative trade powers
Trump’s legal pivot could involve using provisions of the Trade Act of 1974 to impose temporary tariffs of up to 15% for 150 days on countries with which the United States runs trade deficits. He has also signalled potential reliance on a section of the Trade Act of 1930 that permits tariffs of up to 50% on countries deemed to discriminate against U.S. commerce — without a fixed time limit.
Economists caution that even if the legal tools differ, the economic impact may remain similar. Kimberly Clausing, an economist at UCLA, said alternative tariff mechanisms could continue to weigh on the U.S. economy, even if they lack the breadth of the emergency powers approach.
A broader rebuke of executive power
Beyond trade policy, the decision represents a significant judicial check on presidential authority. Trump has frequently relied on emergency and national security statutes to advance key initiatives, often treating Congress as an obstacle rather than a partner.
The court’s ruling signals that such expansive interpretations of executive power — particularly in areas constitutionally reserved for Congress — may face increasing scrutiny.
Yet Trump remains defiant. “Now the court has given me the unquestioned right to ban all sort of things from coming into our country,” he said, arguing that the constraints imposed by the ruling would ultimately strengthen his position.
Whether the new 10% tariff withstands legal and political challenges may determine not only the future of U.S. trade policy, but also the boundaries of presidential power in an era of deep institutional tension.