Supreme Court Deals Blow to Trump, Strikes Down Sweeping Tariffs in Landmark 6-3 Ruling**

**WASHINGTON, D.C. —** In a seismic rebuke to presidential power, the Supreme Court on Friday struck down President Donald Trump’s sweeping global tariffs, ruling that the administration overstepped its authority by invoking a 1970s-era emergency law to unilaterally tax imports from nearly all U.S. trading partners .

The 6-3 decision, which upheld lower court findings, represents the most significant legal check on Trump’s expansive use of executive authority since he returned to the White House in 2025 . The ruling invalidates the so-called “Liberation Day” tariffs imposed last April, including both the 10% universal tariff and additional duties levied on dozens of countries .

### The Court’s Reasoning

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts delivered a pointed rebuke to the administration’s legal arguments. “The president asserts the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope,” Roberts wrote. “In light of the breadth, history, and constitutional context of that asserted authority, he must identify clear congressional authorization to exercise it” .

The court held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977—which allows presidents to “regulate importation” during national emergencies—does not grant authority to impose tariffs . Significantly, no previous president had ever used the law for such purposes .

The majority included the court’s three liberal justices—Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor—joined by three conservative appointees: Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, and Roberts himself . Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito, and Clarence Thomas dissented .

In his dissent, Kavanaugh warned of practical chaos ahead. “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,” he wrote. “As was acknowledged at oral argument, the refund process is likely to be a ‘mess'” .

### Trump’s Fury

President Trump, speaking to reporters following the ruling, expressed barely contained rage. “I’m ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country,” Trump said .

The president had spent Thursday complaining about having to “wait forever” for the decision, calling tariffs his “favorite word” and insisting the “language was clear” that he possessed the authority . On Friday, he predicted foreign nations were “dancing in the streets,” but warned: “They won’t be dancing for long—that I can assure you” .

### Economic Fallout

The financial stakes are staggering. The federal government collected approximately $195 billion in tariff revenue during fiscal year 2025, a 150% increase from the previous year . Under Friday’s ruling, much of that could be subject to refund claims.

Major corporations including Costco, Revlon, and Bumble Bee Foods had already filed lawsuits with the U.S. Court of International Trade in anticipation of the decision, seeking to secure refunds before funds were transferred to Treasury . A group of small businesses involved in the original challenge estimated the tariffs represented a $3 trillion tax increase on Americans over the next decade .

Wall Street reacted positively, with the S&P 500 rising 0.4% following the announcement—though analysts noted the muted response reflected expectations that the administration would quickly pursue alternative mechanisms .

### Political Reactions

Democratic leaders celebrated the ruling. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called it “a win for the wallets of every American consumer,” adding that “a president cannot ignore Congress and unilaterally slap tariffs on Americans” .

Representative John Larson (D-CT), a member of the House Trade Subcommittee, announced legislation requiring Customs and Border Protection to automatically refund tariffs paid by small businesses within 90 days . Citing a Yale Budget Lab study estimating the tariffs cost the average household $1,700 annually, Larson declared: “Today, the Supreme Court handed a stunning rebuke to President Trump and his unconstitutional, cost-raising tariff regime” .

Republicans found themselves in an awkward position. Representative French Hill (R-AR) walked a careful line, stating that “while tariffs can be a useful tool when applied in a targeted way, today’s Supreme Court decision underscores the need for Congress to play a role in trade policy” .

### International Response

Global reactions ranged from cautious to concerned. The European Union issued a measured statement “taking note” of the ruling and analyzing its implications . The British Chambers of Commerce warned the decision “does little to clear the murky waters for business,” noting that steel and aluminum tariffs remain unaffected .

Canada’s business leaders urged continued vigilance. Candace Laing of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce warned: “The Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the use of IEEPA tariff powers is a legal ruling, not a reset of U.S. trade policy. This is certainly not the last chapter of this never-ending story” .

### What Remains, What Comes Next

Crucially, Friday’s ruling does not invalidate all Trump tariffs. Sector-specific duties on steel, aluminum, lumber, and automobiles—imposed under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 citing national security concerns—remain in effect .

And the administration has already signaled its intent to fight back. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent had previewed in December that alternative legislation could replicate the tariffs if the court ruled against IEEPA authority . Senior officials have announced plans to impose a temporary 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974—though that authority is limited to 150 days—while beginning Section 301 investigations to support longer-term measures .

The Supreme Court’s intervention marks a rare moment of judicial pushback against a president who has grown accustomed to getting his way. With cases pending on birthright citizenship and federal workforce restructuring, Friday’s ruling may signal that even a friendly Court has limits .

For American businesses and consumers, however, the uncertainty is far from over. As one trade analyst put it: “The cudgel is diminished, but the fight continues” .