A landmark Supreme Court decision has dealt a serious blow to President Trump’s trade powers.
Fox News interrupted regular programming for a breaking news alert as the Court struck down the majority of Trump’s sweeping tariffs, ruling that he exceeded his presidential authority by invoking emergency powers to impose global trade levies. In a 6–3 ruling, justices determined that the president had improperly relied on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) a law meant for genuine national crises to justify aggressive import tariffs, delivering a major legal and political setback for his economic agenda.
The decision, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, saw an unusual coalition of conservatives and liberals. Roberts joined liberal justices along with conservatives Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, highlighting a rare defeat for the Trump administration. In the opinion, Roberts wrote that the president claimed “the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration and scope,” yet the administration pointed to “no statute” where Congress had ever authorized such actions. He concluded clearly: “IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs.” Justices Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and Samuel Alito dissented.
This ruling represents one of the most significant Supreme Court setbacks for Trump since the start of his second term in January, particularly given the court’s 6–3 conservative majority.
While the decision doesn’t eliminate all tariffs, it invalidates two of his most aggressive measures: the so-called “reciprocal” tariffs—ranging from 34% on China to a 10% baseline on other countries—and a 25% levy on certain imports from Canada, China, and Mexico, imposed under the claim that these nations had failed to curb the flow of fentanyl. Other tariffs, such as those on steel and aluminum imposed under separate laws, remain in place.
Trump may attempt to reintroduce the struck-down tariffs using other legislation. Since returning to the White House, he has aggressively reshaped U.S. trade policy, targeting imports worldwide, often relying on an expansive reading of IEEPA. Critics have long argued that the law was never intended to authorize tariffs. Federal trade and appeals courts had already ruled against Trump’s interpretation before the Supreme Court stepped in.
Before the ruling, Trump warned of dire consequences if the Court sided against him, writing: “If the Supreme Court rules against the United States of America on this National Security bonanza, WE’RE SCREWED!”
Despite the setback, the White House maintains that tariffs remain central to Trump’s economic vision, though the Supreme Court has now placed significant limits on one of his signature policies.
Comments
Post a Comment