In a significant rebuke to presidential authority, the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday struck down sweeping tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump under emergency powers, ruling 6–3 that the measures exceeded the authority granted to him by Congress.
At the center of the dispute was the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law that allows the president to regulate commerce during national emergencies stemming from foreign threats. The Trump administration had relied on IEEPA to justify a series of executive orders imposing broad tariffs on imports, arguing they were necessary to address economic and security concerns.
In response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that struck down much of his broad global tariff regime as an unconstitutional use of emergency powers, President Trump announced a new 10% global tariff designed to replace the duties invalidated by the court. The tariff — to be imposed under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 — can be applied to imports from all countries for up to 150 days and sits on top of existing tariffs already in place. Trump framed the action as a direct continuation of his trade agenda, saying the administration has “alternatives” to sustain higher duties and is also launching additional Section 301 investigations into what it views as unfair foreign trade practices.
READ: US trade deficit in 2025 ended similar to 2024 despite Trump tariffs (February 19, 2026)
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts rejected that interpretation. The administration, he wrote, claimed “the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration and scope” based on the words “regulate” and “importation” within the statute. But those words, Roberts said, “cannot bear such weight.” He emphasized that IEEPA “contains no reference to tariffs or duties” and noted that “until now no President has read IEEPA to confer such power.”
The ruling invalidates many of Trump’s tariffs, particularly the country-by-country “reciprocal” tariffs, including rates as high as 34% on China and a 10% baseline on other nations, as well as a 25% tariff on certain goods from Canada, China and Mexico tied to concerns about fentanyl trafficking. However, tariffs imposed under other statutory authorities, such as those on steel and aluminum, remain in place.
The court’s decision was fractured in its reasoning but firm in its conclusion. In a portion of the opinion joined by Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, Roberts invoked the “major questions” doctrine, which holds that Congress must clearly delegate powers of vast economic or political significance. When Congress has delegated tariff powers, Roberts wrote, it has done so explicitly and with strict limits, a standard the Trump tariffs did not meet.
The court’s three liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined another part of the opinion concluding that the statutory text itself did not authorize tariffs. Roberts noted that while many statutes empower the executive to “regulate,” the government failed to identify any in which that power includes the authority to tax.
READ: Canada to bolster car industry amidst US tariff pressure (
In dissent, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, argued that tariffs are “a traditional and common tool to regulate importation” and therefore fall within IEEPA’s scope. Kavanaugh also suggested the ruling might not significantly constrain future presidents, as other federal statutes could justify many of the tariffs at issue. However, he warned that the decision could carry substantial short-term consequences, potentially requiring the federal government to refund billions of dollars to importers who had already paid the tariffs, costs some businesses may have passed on to consumers.
The court did not address whether or how the government should issue refunds, though tariffs collected in 2025 alone were estimated at more than $200 billion.
Markets reacted positively to the decision, with stocks rallying on news of the ruling. Business owners who challenged the tariffs expressed relief. “These new tariffs were arbitrary, unpredictable, and bad business,” said Victor Schwartz, a New York-based wine and spirits importer. “Thankfully, courts at every level recognized these duties for what they were: unconstitutional government overreach.”