The Supreme Court struck down President Donald Trump's far-reaching global tariffs on Friday, handing him a significant loss on an issue crucial to his economic agenda. The 6-3 decision centers on tariffs imposed under an emergency powers law, including the sweeping “reciprocal” tariffs he levied on nearly every other country. It's the first major piece of Trump's broad agenda to come squarely before the nation's highest court, which he helped shape with the appointments of three conservative jurists in his first term.
Joyce Vance is a former U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama and is currently a Distinguished Professor of the Practice of Law at the University of Alabama. Prior to the SCOTUS decision, Vance spoke with APR news on the subject of President Trump’s use of tariffs as part of a future episode of “APR Notebook.” Even before the High Court ruling, Vance warned opponents of the President shouldn’t cheer too loudly, even if the IEEPA (International Emergency Economic Powers Act) tariffs were to be struck down.
“This is not all of the tariffs that President Trump has imposed, but it's about a subsection under a statute called IEEPA,” Vance observed. “And IEEPA does not contain the word tariffs in the statute, but Trump used it to maintain them, and his solicitor general, John Sauer, argued at oral argument that the statute, even though it didn't say tariff, was very broad in authorizing the president to impose economic sanctions.”
The SCOTUS majority found that the Constitution “very clearly” gives Congress the power to impose taxes, which include tariffs. “The Framers did not vest any part of the taxing power in the Executive Branch,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote. Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.
“The tariffs at issue here may or may not be wise policy. But as a matter of text, history, and precedent, they are clearly lawful,” Kavanaugh wrote in the dissent.
The majority did not address whether companies could get refunded for the billions they have collectively paid in tariffs. Many companies, including the big-box warehouse chain Costco, have already lined up for refunds in court, and Kavanaugh noted the process could be complicated.
“The Court says nothing today about whether, and if so how, the Government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers. But that process is likely to be a ‘mess,’ as was acknowledged at oral argument,” he wrote.
As Joyce Vance observed to APR news, the tariffs decision doesn’t stop Trump from imposing duties under other laws. While those have more limitations on the speed and severity of Trump’s actions, top administration officials have said they expect to keep the tariff framework in place under other authorities. She did say to APR news, prior to the SCOTUS decision, that a ruling against Trump would likely have long term effects.
“And a future Supreme Court won't just be able to undo that decision that will be precedent for this statute and issuing tariffs,” Vance said. “And future cases might, for instance, challenge other laws, not IEEPA, or they might challenge the ways presidents use IEEPA in the future. But when this once the supreme court issues a decision, that decision stands unless, and this is rare, that President precedent is overturned, although it has happened increasingly with this court in the last three years. Roe versus Wade is, of course, a good example where the court says this case was wrongly decided. People have not relied on it. It's not done any social good, so we're going to reverse it. That's supposed to be the rare exception to the rule.”
The Supreme Court ruling comes despite a series of short-term wins on the court’s emergency docket that have allowed Trump to push ahead with extraordinary flexes of executive power on issues ranging from high-profile firings to major federal funding cuts.
The Republican president has been vocal about the case, calling it one of the most important in U.S. history and saying a ruling against him would be an economic body blow to the country. But legal opposition crossed the political spectrum, including libertarian and pro-business groups that are typically aligned with the GOP. Polling has found tariffs aren't broadly popular with the public, amid wider voter concern about affordability.
The Constitution gives Congress the power to levy tariffs. But the Trump administration argued that a 1977 law allowing the president to regulate importation during emergencies also allows him to set tariffs. Other presidents have used the law dozens of times, often to impose sanctions, but Trump was the first president to invoke it for import taxes.
Trump set what he called "reciprocal" tariffs on most countries in April 2025 to address trade deficits that he declared a national emergency. Those came after he imposed duties on Canada, China and Mexico, ostensibly to address a drug trafficking emergency.
A series of lawsuits followed, including a case from a dozen largely Democratic-leaning states and others from small businesses selling everything from plumbing supplies to educational toys to women’s cycling apparel.
The challengers argued the emergency powers law doesn’t even mention tariffs and Trump's use of it fails several legal tests, including one that doomed then-President Joe Biden's $500 billion student loan forgiveness program.
The economic impact of Trump's tariffs has been estimated at some $3 trillion over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The Treasury has collected more than $133 billion from the import taxes the president has imposed under the emergency powers law, federal data from December shows.
