The Supreme Court on Friday struck down President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs

The 6-3 decision means is a rare instance of the conservative-led court reining in Trump’s expansive use of executive power, a major rebuke of his economic program

The justices found that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the imposition of duties

Ruling guts the universal imposition of 10 percent tariffs on almost every US trading partner, and higher for top trade partners

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch joined the court’s three liberals in the majority

The White House has signaled it will attempt to use other authorities to keep similar duties in place

The U.S. Supreme Court building sitting in Washington DC, in a 6-3 decision struck down President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs. on Friday, effectively reining in President Trump’s expansive use of executive power

The Supreme Court on Friday struck down President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs, a major repudiation of a core piece of Trump’s economic program. The undertone of the court ruling Trump’s expansive use of tariffs illegal, could force the US to pay back billions.
The 6-3 decision is a rare instance of the conservative-led court reining in Trump’s expansive use of executive power. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch joined the court’s three liberals in the majority.
“The President asserts the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope. In light of the breadth, history, and constitutional context of that asserted authority, he must identify clear congressional authorization to exercise it,” Roberts wrote for the court, declaring that the 1977 law Trump cited to justify the import duties “falls short” of the Congressional approval that would be needed.
The justices found that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which Trump used to apply broad, across-the-board levies, does not authorize the imposition of duties.

The Supreme Court on Friday in 6-3 majority decision led by Chief Justice John Roberts, struck down President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs with – The justices found that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the imposition of duties

The ruling wipes out the 10 percent tariff Trump imposed on nearly every country in the world, as well as specific, higher tariffs on some of the top U.S. trading partners, including Canada, Mexico, China, the European Union, Japan and South Korea.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, joined by conservative Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch, as well as liberal Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.
In his opinion, Roberts noted that the “lengthy list of powers” articulated by the IEEPA does not include “any mention of tariffs or duties.”
“That omission is notable in light of the significant but specific powers Congress did go to the trouble of naming,” the chief justice went on. “It stands to reason that had Congress intended to convey the distinct and extraordinary power to impose tariffs, it would have done so expressly—as it consistently has in other tariff statutes.”
“Accordingly,” Roberts wrote, “the president must ‘point to clear congressional authorization’ to justify his extraordinary assertion of the power to impose tariffs. He cannot.”

Donald Trump announces new tariffs in the Rose Garden at the White House in Washington on April 2, 2025. In his second term Trump has been not been reticent exercising executive powers. Notably, imposing biting tariffs on almost every US trading partner – 10 percent universal tariff, higher for top trade partners

The ruling also raises questions about the future of trade deals that the Trump administration has struck with the European Union, Japan, South Korea and other trading partners to reduce the tariffs he targeted at their exports to the United States.
Several of those countries have entered trade agreements with the US, and before the ruling indicated that they would continue to honor those agreements as the victory for the 12 blue states and small businesses that challenged Trump’s tariffs is expected to be short lived.
To counter the fallout of the ruling, the White House has pledged to use other legal avenues to impose tariffs, including Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and Sections 201 and 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, if the high court did not rule his way.
The president in the past mooted the possibility of repackaging his IEEPA tariffs regime as licensing fees, a method that far more cumbersome, often restricted to certain types of imports or subject to expiration.
Moreover the federal government may now be forced to issue billions of dollars in refunds to companies that paid the tariffs the high court ruled illegal.
Many of those companies have already sued to protect their refund claims in the event the court struck down the Trump tariffs. The majority opinion did not address the looming legal quagmire over refunds, but Justice Brett Kavanaugh predicted that “The United States may be required to refund billions of dollars to importers who paid the IEEPA tariffs, even though some importers may have already passed on costs to consumers or others.
“The refund process is likely to be a ‘mess,’” Kavanaugh wrote.