In a major setback to Donald Trump’s economic agenda, the Supreme Court of the United States on Friday ruled that he overstepped his executive authority by imposing sweeping tariffs on global imports.
In a 6–3 decision, the court held that a 1977 law intended to address national emergencies did not provide sufficient legal basis for most of the tariffs introduced during Trump’s return to the White House. The verdict topples a key pillar of his aggressive trade policy and deals a blow to his expansive interpretation of presidential powers.
At the centre of the dispute was the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which allows the president to regulate or prohibit certain international transactions during a declared national emergency.
The Trump administration had argued that the law empowered the president to impose tariffs on multiple trading partners without congressional approval. However, the court concluded that the statute did not authorise such broad-based tariff measures.
Under the US constitution, Congress holds the primary authority to levy taxes and duties. The ruling reaffirmed that tariffs — which function as taxes on imported goods — fall within that legislative domain.
During oral arguments, US solicitor general D John Sauer contended that the tariffs were regulatory rather than revenue-raising measures. He maintained that any revenue generated was incidental to their broader policy objective.
Several justices appeared unconvinced. Liberal justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned the distinction between tariffs and taxes, indicating that the administration’s argument blurred constitutional boundaries.
Chief justice John Roberts also signalled concern, noting that taxation has historically been a core power reserved for Congress. Even some conservative members of the bench were sceptical of the administration’s interpretation of emergency powers.
Trump had repeatedly defended the tariffs as a tool to revitalise US manufacturing, rebalance trade relations and strengthen federal finances. He claimed they would generate trillions of dollars in revenue and make global trade more favourable to the US.
The ruling is expected to create fresh uncertainty over existing tariff structures and could prompt legislative battles in Congress over trade authority.
The decision also underscores limits on executive power, even under a court shaped by a conservative majority. For Trump, who framed the case as central to his “America First” economic doctrine, the judgment represents a significant legal and political reversal.
