The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that President Trump’s global tariffs were unlawful, marking a significant limitation on presidential power and impacting U.S. trade policy and the global economy.
The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a pivotal legal rebuke to former President Donald Trump on Friday, ruling that his sweeping global tariffs were unlawful due to an overreach of constitutional authority. The 6–3 decision serves as a major check on presidential power and carries extensive implications for U.S. trade policy and the global economy.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, stated that the tariffs—imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977—exceeded the president’s authority. He emphasized that the statute was never intended to grant unilateral tariff-setting power to the executive branch. According to Roberts, only Congress possesses the constitutional authority to levy taxes and tariffs, rejecting the administration’s interpretation that the IEEPA allowed for broad import duties without explicit legislative approval.
This ruling emerged from litigation initiated by businesses and a coalition of 12 U.S. states challenging the legality of the tariffs, which Trump had linked to alleged national emergencies and trade deficits. The justices concurred with lower court rulings that the IEEPA did not authorize tariff powers of such magnitude.
In dissent, conservative Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito cautioned that the decision could restrict executive flexibility regarding trade and economic policy, although the majority opinion prevailed.
In the wake of the ruling, Trump expressed his discontent, labeling the decision as “terrible” and pledging to explore alternative legal avenues to impose tariffs. He announced intentions to utilize other statutory authority, such as Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, to impose a temporary 10% global tariff while Congress deliberates on longer-term trade measures.
Wall Street reacted positively to the Supreme Court’s decision, with key U.S. stock indexes, including the S&P 500 and Nasdaq, experiencing gains on expectations that the legal clarity could alleviate economic pressures stemming from trade frictions. European and Asian markets also saw upticks, reflecting a sense of global market relief.
However, economists cautioned that the ruling may not lead to immediate reductions in consumer prices—particularly in states like Texas—because Trump’s alternative plans for imposing levies could maintain elevated import costs for U.S. businesses and consumers.
Looking ahead, the Supreme Court’s majority did not address how importers might be refunded billions of dollars collected under the now-invalidated tariffs, leaving that issue for future legal and administrative discussions. Many companies have already begun pursuing refunds in lower courts.
Responses from lawmakers largely fell along partisan lines, with Democrats celebrating the ruling as a necessary check on executive overreach, while many Republicans urged collaboration with the administration to maintain tariffs under different legal frameworks.
As the implications of this landmark ruling unfold, the future of U.S. trade policy remains uncertain, with potential shifts in approach likely to emerge in the coming months.
According to GlobalNetNews.