Lower courts ruled Trump acted unlawfully; constitution gives Congress authority to issue tariffs
A view of the US Supreme Court in Washington, US June 29, 2024. Photo: Reuters
The US Supreme Court struck down on Friday President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs that he pursued under a law meant for use in national emergencies, rejecting one of his most contentious assertions of authority in a ruling with major implications for the global economy.
The justices, in a 6-3 ruling authored by conservative Chief Justice John Roberts, upheld a lower court’s decision that the Republican president’s use of this 1977 law exceeded his authority. Roberts, citing a prior Supreme Court ruling, wrote that “the president must ‘point to clear congressional authorization’ to justify his extraordinary assertion of the power to impose tariffs,” adding: “He cannot.”
Trump has leveraged tariffs – taxes on imported goods – as a key economic and foreign policy tool. They have been central to a global trade war that Trump initiated after he began his second term as president, one that has alienated trading partners, affected financial markets and caused global economic uncertainty.
The Supreme Court reached its conclusion in a legal challenge by businesses affected by the tariffs and 12 US states, most of them Democratic-governed, against Trump’s unprecedented use of this law to unilaterally impose import taxes.
Trump’s tariffs were forecast to generate trillions of dollars in revenue for the United States over the next decade, which possesses the world’s largest economy. Trump’s administration has not provided tariffs collection data since December 14. But Penn-Wharton Budget Model economists estimated on Friday that the amount collected under Trump’s tariffs based on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) stood at more than $175 billion. That amount likely would need to be refunded with a Supreme Court ruling against the IEEPA-based tariffs.
The US Constitution grants Congress, not the president, the authority to issue taxes and tariffs. But Trump instead turned to statutory authority by invoking IEEPA to impose tariffs on nearly every US trading partner without the approval of Congress. Trump has imposed some additional tariffs under other laws that are not at issue in this case. Based on government data from October to mid-December, those represent about a third of the revenue from Trump-imposed tariffs.
IEEPA allows a president to regulate commerce in a national emergency. Trump became the first president to use IEEPA to impose tariffs, one of many ways he has aggressively pushed the boundaries of executive authority since returning to office, in areas ranging from immigration crackdowns to firing federal agency officials, domestic military deployments, and overseas military operations.
Trump described the tariffs as vital for US economic security, predicting that the country would be defenseless and ruined without them. In November, he told reporters that without his tariffs, “the rest of the world would laugh at us because they’ve used tariffs against us for years and took advantage of us.” He cited abuses by other countries, including China, the world’s second-largest economy.
After the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case in November, Trump said he would consider alternatives if it ruled against him on tariffs, telling reporters, “we’ll have to develop a ‘game two’ plan.” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and other administration officials said the United States would invoke other legal justifications to retain as many of Trump’s tariffs as possible.
Among these are a statutory provision permitting tariffs on imported goods that threaten US national security, and another allowing retaliatory actions, including tariffs, against trading partners that the Office of the US Trade Representative determines have used unfair trade practices against American exporters. None of these alternatives offers the flexibility and blunt-force dynamics that IEEPA provided Trump and may not replicate the full scope of his tariffs in a timely fashion.
Trump’s ability to impose tariffs instantaneously on any trading partner’s goods under the aegis of a declared national emergency gave him leverage over other countries, bringing world leaders to Washington to secure trade deals often including billions of dollars in investments or enhanced market access for US companies. However, his use of tariffs as a cudgel in US foreign policy has antagonized numerous countries, including long-time US allies.
IEEPA had historically been used for imposing sanctions or freezing assets, not for tariffs. The law does not specifically mention tariffs. Trump’s Justice Department argued that IEEPA allows tariffs by authorizing the president to “regulate” imports to address emergencies.
The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that if all current tariffs remain in place, including IEEPA-based duties, they would generate about $300 billion annually over the next decade. Total US net customs duty receipts reached a record $195 billion in fiscal 2025, which ended on September 30, according to US Treasury Department data.
On April 2, on a date Trump labeled “Liberation Day,” he announced what he called “reciprocal” tariffs on goods imported from most US trading partners, invoking IEEPA to address a national emergency related to US trade deficits, though the country has run trade deficits for decades. In February and March 2025, Trump imposed tariffs on China, Canada, and Mexico, citing the trafficking of fentanyl and illicit drugs into the United States as a national emergency.
Trump has wielded tariffs to extract concessions, renegotiate trade deals, and punish countries on non-trade political matters. These include Brazil’s prosecution of former President Jair Bolsonaro, India’s purchases of Russian oil, and an anti-tariffs ad by Canada’s Ontario province.
IEEPA was passed by Congress and signed by Democratic President Jimmy Carter, with additional limits on presidential authority compared to a predecessor law.
The cases before the Supreme Court involved three lawsuits. The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sided with five small businesses importing goods in one challenge, and with the states of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Vermont in another. Separately, a Washington-based federal judge sided with a family-owned toy company called Learning Resources.
