The Supreme Court of the United States, in a 6–3 decision, struck down Donald Trump’s global tariffs, ruling the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize unilateral import duties, reaffirming Congress’ exclusive taxation power.
WASHINGTON, D.C : In a landmark 6-3 ruling, the United States Supreme Court has struck down President Donald Trump’s expansive global tariff regime. The Court determined that the President overstepped his statutory and constitutional authority by imposing broad import duties unilaterally under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977.
Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion, which concluded that the Constitution firmly assigns the power of taxation to Congress and that the IEEPA does not explicitly grant the executive branch the authority to impose tariffs.
ALSO READ: US Judge Stays Trump Administration’s Ban on Foreign Students at Harvard University
The central legal issue before the Supreme Court was “Whether the IEEPA, a 1977 law permitting the President to regulate commerce during declared national emergencies allows the executive branch to impose tariffs on imported goods unilaterally?”.
In a 6-3 vote, the Court answered this in the negative. The majority comprised Chief Justice Roberts, Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett, who all voted to invalidate the tariffs. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.
The legal dispute began in 2025 following a series of executive orders issued by President Trump. These orders invoked the IEEPA to declare national economic emergencies, citing ongoing U.S. trade deficits and an influx of illicit fentanyl.
Under these declarations, the President instituted widespread trade restrictions, most notably the “Liberation Day” reciprocal tariffs of April 2025, which established a baseline duty of 10 percent on nearly all global imports and additional duties ranging from 15 to 50 percent on specific countries.
Fentanyl-related tariffs were strictly levied on goods from China, Mexico, and Canada. Following these duties’ implementation, various coalitions of small businesses, states, and U.S. importers filed lawsuits challenging the legality of the executive actions in lower federal courts. Trade courts ruled that the Trump administration did not have the authority to impose these levies under the IEEPA, prompting a government appeal to the Supreme Court.
The plaintiffs, consisting of businesses and states affected by the tariff-induced cost increases, argued that imposing tariffs is inherently a taxing authority reserved for Congress under Article I of the U.S. Constitution. They contended that the IEEPA was intended for freezing assets and sanctioning foreign threats, not for restructuring the U.S. tariff code unilaterally.
The Trump administration contended that the IEEPA grants the President considerable flexibility during declared national emergencies. It cited a provision allowing the President to “regulate… importation or exportation” to address unusual and extraordinary foreign threats, arguing that tariffs fall within the definition of regulating importation. The Supreme Court firmly rejected this interpretation.
Chief Justice Roberts emphasized the constitutional separation of powers in taxation, stating,
“The Framers did not vest any part of the taxing power in the Executive Branch.”
In analyzing the IEEPA’s statutory text, the Court noted the absence of explicitly delegated powers regarding tariffs.
It noted,
“IEEPA authorizes the President to ‘investigate, block during the pendency of an investigation, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit… importation or exportation,’”
Roberts wrote,
“Absent from this lengthy list of specific powers is any mention of tariffs or duties.”
The majority asserted that claiming vast executive power necessitates clear congressional authorization.
The majority opinion stated,
“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. 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.”
Justice Neil Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion, highlighting the legislative branch’s exclusive authority over national lawmaking.
Gorsuch stated,
“The Constitution lodges the Nation’s lawmaking powers in Congress alone,”
ALSO READ: Elon Musk Faces Major Legal Battle Over Alleged Unconstitutional Role in US Government
In dissent, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by Justices Thomas and Alito, argued that the executive actions fell within statutory boundaries established by Congress.
Kavanaugh wrote,
“The tariffs at issue here may or may not be wise policy. But as a matter of text, history, and precedent, they are clearly lawful,”
The Supreme Court concluded that the IEEPA does not empower the President to impose tariffs, thereby ratifying the lower courts’ decisions and invalidating the emergency global tariffs. Notably, the Court chose not to address the complex issue of how the federal government should refund the estimated billions of dollars in tariffs already collected from U.S. importers.
Acknowledging this unresolved issue, Justice Kavanaugh noted in his dissent,
“The Court says nothing today about whether, and if so how, the Government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers. But that process is likely to be a ‘mess,’ as was acknowledged at oral argument.”
The ruling does not affect duties imposed under other specific trade statutes, such as Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 or Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Trump’s Remark after the SC rulling
Following the US Supreme Court’s ruling on tariffs, President Donald Trump stated there is no alteration to the trade agreement with India, emphasizing that the deal remains intact. He characterized his relationship with India as “fantastic” and noted ongoing trade between the two nations. Trump made these comments during a news conference at the White House shortly after the Supreme Court struck down his extensive tariffs.
Earlier in the month, he signed an Executive Order eliminating the 25 percent punitive tariffs imposed on India. Under the revised trade deal, Washington plans to reduce tariffs on New Delhi from 25 percent to 18 percent.
In related news, a White House official clarified that the tariff on India will temporarily decrease to 10 percent following Trump’s announcement of a new global tariff.
This new tariff will replace the previously imposed duties under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which were invalidated by the Supreme Court.
The White House’s clarification indicates that the new 10 percent global tariff under Section 122 will not be an addition to the earlier IEEPA tariffs on India, but rather will replace them for the time being. This adjustment confirms that, at least temporarily, the applicable rate for India will be 10 percent under the new Section 122 authority. This reflects both legal limitations set by the US court and the administration’s commitment to continuing its pursuit through different statutory avenues.
In India, the Ministry of External Affairs announced that both countries are working to finalize a mutually beneficial trade agreement as per the recently adopted Joint Statement. In a media briefing in New Delhi, Ministry spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal mentioned that a delegation from India, led by the chief negotiator, will be visiting the US next week.