Supreme Court Rules Trump’s Tariffs Unconstitutional

When President Donald Trump signed the Liberation Day tariffs on April 2, 2025, mass panic ensued. Countries scrambled to make trade deals with the United States. The stock market collapsed for a month. Trade wars escalated with China. Amidst the chaos, the 2nd Trump administration thought they had an ally by their side: The Supreme Court. A third of the court is composed of Trump-appointed justices. Two-thirds of the justices are conservative. The president never anticipated many roadblocks in the implementation of his tariffs. Yet, on Friday, the Supreme Court struck down the administration’s most significant economic and foreign policy initiative to date, putting the future of the administration’s signature policy in doubt.

Trump has had a long history of promoting his tariff agenda. During the 2024 campaign, he said “tariff” was his “favorite word” and “the most beautiful word in the dictionary.” He also emphasized placing tariffs on nations that have “ripped us off,” pointing to nations with large trade deficits with the United States. Analysts predicted large sums of money flowing to the federal government, albeit at the risk of damaging diplomatic relationships with other nations and possibly burdening the brunt of the tariffs on consumers.

The saga started just days after he took office. In February, he started a trade war with China, Canada and Mexico by imposing tariffs due to purported fentanyl smuggling to the United States. More tariffs were soon introduced on steel and aluminum. This immediately prompted outrage among many countries, with analysts already questioning the legality of these tariffs. In April, the main event happened, Liberation Day. Trump declared a national emergency regarding trade deficits and announced “reciprocal tariffs” of at least 10%. Chinese tariffs rose as high as 145% after a series of retaliatory measures. Throughout his first year in office, he used the tariff as a mechanism for diplomatic negotiation and showed where the administration’s support across the world lay.

Usually, tariffs are considered a tax, and broad tariffs must be approved by Congress, as the power to tax lies with Congress. However, Trump justified these tariffs through the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which authorizes the President to unilaterally regulate international commerce after a threat to national security or foreign policy. In his case, Trump declared an economic emergency due to the trade deficits, which he determined were unfair to the United States.

On November 5, the hearing of the case commenced, with 3 conservative justices, Chief Justice John Roberts, and Associate Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett—both Trump appointees—appearing to be skeptical about the President’s use of the IEEPA to invoke these tariffs. They raised questions about the separation of powers, alluding to the usual procedure of Congressional approval for tariffs. After the oral hearing, most media outlets portrayed it as likely that the administration’s tariff policy would be ruled unconstitutional.

On Friday, that is exactly what happened. In a 6-3 ruling, with the 3 aforementioned conservative justices voting in favor, the court ruled that the IEEPA’s language did not give the power of imposing tariffs to the President. In his majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the IEEPA does not explicitly apply to tariffs, and the tariff policy violates the “major questions doctrine”, which restricts the President’s ability to broadly regulate without Congressional approval. The 3 other conservative justices, Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh and Samuel Alito, all dissented, saying that the tariffs are a part of U.S. foreign policy, that tariffs are a common tool to regulate importation, and that the ruling is a broad overstep of presidential power.

The aftermath was swift. Business leaders and some countries praised the ruling; however, most were still reviewing its effects on key industries, investment plans, trade negotiations and, most importantly, refunds. The ruling never specified the refunding of tariffs, meaning that the United States may be on the hook for hundreds of billions of dollars of tariff repayments. The implementation of these is yet to be known, as legal fights are almost certainly set to ensue, and the administration is likely to fight the idea of refunds. After the ruling, President Trump was furious at the justices who said the tariffs were unconstitutional, singling out the liberal justices and the two he appointed (Barrett and Gorsuch) who voted against his agenda, alleging that they were motivated by foreign interests. Right after the ruling, Trump imposed a global 15% tariff under a new rule that only allows the implementation of them for 150 days without Congressional approval.

Overall, this decision marks a major turning point in the fight between an increase in executive power and constitutional limits. For President Trump, it’s a stunning blow to his signature economic policy, one that relied on the sweeping use of unilateral executive power to reshape trade and diplomatic relationships. For Congress and the judiciary, it keeps Constitutional boundaries, emphasizes the separation of powers and reaffirms that taxation lies with Congress. For businesses, this ruling starts a fight between their ideals and the administration’s, with outcomes on deals and refunds yet to be determined.

Read more here:

• Alexandra Stevenson, River Akira Davis, New York Times

• Freddie Clayton, NBC News

• Rachel Lerman, Washington Post

• Ken Thomas, et al., Wall Street Journal