Supreme Court strikes down tariffs, rebuking Trump administration

By Washington Post Staff

The Washington Post

The Supreme Court on Friday struck down most of President Donald Trump‘s sweeping tariffs, a ruling that deals a major blow to his signature economic policy and represents a stinging political setback.

In a 6-3 decision, the justices ruled the president did not have the authority under a 1977 emergency economic powers law to impose import levies on goods from nearly all of the nation’s trading partners. The decision is expected to reverberate widely, affecting global trade, consumers, companies, inflation and the pocketbooks of every American.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote the opinion for the majority, issuing a striking rebuke of Trump’s use of the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping tariffs.

“Based on two words separated by 16 others in Section 1702(a)(1)(B) of IEEPA – ‘regulate’ and ‘importation’ – the President asserts the independent power to impose tariffs on imports from any country, of any product, at any rate, for any amount of time,” Roberts wrote. “Those words cannot bear such weight.”

In dissent, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh wrote he “firmly” disagreed with the decision.

The “text, history, and precedent” show that the law Trump used to impose tariffs was “clearly” used properly, he wrote. “Like quotas and embargoes, tariffs are a traditional and common tool to regulate importation,” Kavanaugh wrote in his dissent, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

The Supreme Court’s ruling is not the end of Trump’s tariffs. Experts say Trump could quickly replace at least some of them using other authorities. Other levies on materials such as steel and aluminum are not affected by the decision.

Under Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act, Trump could impose 15 percent tariffs on goods from nations that enjoy a balance of payments surplus with the United States. Section 338 of a 1930 trade law authorizes the president to hit nations that discriminate against U.S. products with tariffs up to 50 percent.

“I’m confident that with other tools we have related to unfair trading practices, we can produce the tariff rates we need,” Jamieson Greer, the president’s chief trade negotiator, told an Atlantic Council audience recently.

However, those laws have greater restraints than the freewheeling power Trump has claimed using the emergency economic powers law that was at issue in Friday’s case.

As part of its ruling striking down most of the tariffs, the Supreme Court’s majority did not make clear whether the Trump administration will have to refund billions in tariffs already collected by the federal government.

The issue was one of the most closely watched – and thorniest – in the case, given the vast sums of money involved and the importance to the bottom lines of many businesses. A federal judge wrote in one ruling the companies that are part of the case face an “existential threat to their businesses.”

In his dissent, Kavanaugh said the issue remains murky.

“Refunds of billions of dollars would have significant consequences for the U.S. Treasury,” Kavanaugh wrote. “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.”

The federal government received nearly $134 billion in levies through Dec. 14 under the tariff authority at issue in the case representing millions of potential claims. More than 1,000 firms have filed lawsuits seeking tariffs refunds.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett said during arguments in the case in November that the refund process “could be a mess” because of the magnitude of the undertaking. Trump and officials in the administration have also warned that disbursing the money could put a strain on the government’s finances. The federal government ran a $1.9 trillion deficit for the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, 2025 and, even with the tariff revenue, is projected to run another massive deficit in the current fiscal year.

In a Truth Social post in August, Trump wrote refunding tariffs “would be 1929 all over again, a GREAT DEPRESSION!”