Supreme Court Strikes Down Most of Trump’s Tariffs

Negocios Now Editorial Staff

The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a significant blow to President Donald Trump by invalidating most of the tariffs he imposed using a law designed for national emergencies.

In a 6-3 split decision, the high court concluded that the president overstepped his bounds by using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) to impose broad tariffs on imported goods from numerous countries.

The ruling does not eliminate all tariffs established during his administration, but it does invalidate those implemented under the argument of a national emergency authorized by that legislation.

The president reacted strongly from the White House, calling the decision a “disgrace” and accusing the justices who voted against him of acting “disloyally to the Constitution” and even of being influenced by foreign interests.

Despite the legal setback, Trump asserted that he will continue to use other available legal tools to impose new tariffs and announced plans to soon establish a global tariff of 10%, which in most cases would represent a reduction from previous levels.

The ruling was written by Chief Justice John Roberts, who was supported by the three liberal justices and the conservative justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett. In his opinion, Roberts emphasized that the president was claiming “extraordinary power” to impose tariffs of unlimited scope, duration, and amount without clear authorization from Congress. However, he noted that the administration failed to demonstrate that the IEEPA text explicitly authorized the imposition of trade tariffs.

“We conclude that the IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs,” Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. Justices Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and Samuel Alito dissented and voted against the ruling.

The setback is striking given that the court has a 6-3 conservative majority and, since the start of Trump’s second term in January, had ruled several times in favor of positions defended by his administration. This time, however, the Court drew a clear line in the sand regarding the expansive interpretation of presidential powers in trade matters.

Financial markets reacted positively to the news. Despite Trump’s repeated claims that the tariffs strengthen the U.S. economy, stock markets rose after the decision was announced, reflecting investor relief at the reduction of legal uncertainty.

Business owners who had challenged the tariffs in court celebrated the ruling. Many companies, especially small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), had argued that the tariffs increased their import costs, affected their profit margins, and created distortions in supply chains.

During his second term, Trump intensified his protectionist trade policies, raising the average U.S. tariff rate from around 2.6% to over 13%, with even higher rates in specific sectors such as steel and certain manufactured goods.

To justify some of these measures, the White House declared a national economic emergency and invoked the International Economic and Monetary Offsetting Act (IEEPA), a law enacted in 1977 that has traditionally been used to impose economic sanctions and financial restrictions in response to external threats.

From the outset, various analysts and legislators questioned whether this law could be used to establish widespread tariffs without congressional approval. The Supreme Court’s decision now clarifies this limit, reinforcing the role of the Legislative Branch in trade policy and setting an important precedent regarding the scope of the Executive’s emergency powers.

Read article in Spanish / Leer artículo en español: