Supreme Court Rules Against Trump Tariffs

   Supreme Court Rules   

   Against Trump Tariffs

M.A. Dworkin

     Washington, D.C. - The U.S. Supreme Court voted 6-3 to strike down most of President Trump’s tariffs in a major blow to the President’s economic plans. Although the decision does not affect all of Trump’s tariffs, it does invalidate those implemented using an emergency law. 

     Although the Supreme Court decision ruled that the President does not have the authority without Congressional approval to levy sweeping tariffs, Trump immediately stated he will pursue “alternatives” to tariffs under emergency law. 

     “Other alternatives will now be used  to replace the ones that the court incorrectly rejected,” Trump said at a news conference immediately following the decision. “We have alternatives. Great alternatives. Could be more money. We’ll take in more money, and we’ll be a lot stronger for it. We’re taking in hundreds of billions of dollars. We’ll continue to do so.”

     The President also announced he is imposing a 10% global tax following the court’s decision. 

     “Today, I will sign an order to impose a 10% global tariff under section 122 over and above our normal tariffs already being charged,” Trump stated. “And we’re also initiating several section 301 and other investigations to protect our country from unfair trading practices of other countries and companies.”

     The Justices held that Trump exceeded his authority with his aggressive approach to tariffs on products entering the United States from across the world and that it was not permitted under a 1977 law called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).   

     Trump called the ruling “deeply disappointing” saying he was “ashamed “ of certain members of the court.  

     “I’m ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed, for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country,” the President said. “In actuality, I was very modest in my ask of other countries and businesses because…I wanted to be very well behaved.”

     Notably, the semi-official announcements, in recent weeks, that Trump was about to issue refunds of up to $2,000 to taxpaying families across the United States and the U.S. Virgin Islands may fall into a state of limbo with the current ruling. Still, the fact is Trump’s tariffs have already brought in a fair amount of revenue since April 2025, when they were enacted, to pay for the promised refunds. Customs duties surged from under $10 billion in March to a peak of more than $34 billion in October 2025; dropping off slightly going into 2026.

     Many firms that paid those duties are now signaling that they want a refund, though the process to obtain monies back from the government on this type of issue may not be as straightforward as they hope. 

     The decision was led by the three liberal Justices: Ketanji Brown Jackson (who visited the University of the Virgin Islands last year), Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor. The ruling was upheld by three conservatives, and authored by conservative Chief Justice John Roberts, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett. 

     Conservatives Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented.

     Chief Justice Roberts cited a prior Supreme Court ruling, writing: “the President must point to clear congressional authorization to justify his extraordinary assertion of the power to impose tariffs,” adding: “He cannot.”

     But Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing the dissent, explained that the ruling did not necessarily foreclose Trump “from imposing most if not all of these same sorts of tariffs under statutory authorities,” adding “the court’s decision is not likely to greatly restrict presidential tariff authority going forward.”

     Justice Neil Gorsuch, wrote a separate opinion stressing the importance of major policies, such as taxes and tariffs, going through Congress.

     “Through the process, the Nation can tap the combined wisdom of the people’s elected representatives, not just that of one faction or man,” Gorsuch wrote. “And because laws must earn such broad support to survive the legislative process, they tend to endure, allowing ordinary people to plan their lives in ways they cannot when the rules shift from day to day.”