WASHINGTON: The Supreme Court of the United States has struck down President Donald Trump’s sweeping global tariffs, ruling that he lacked the authority to unilaterally impose them under a law designed for national emergencies.
In a landmark 6-3 decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court found that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) did not grant the president unlimited power to set tariffs during peacetime. The ruling emphasized that under the U.S. Constitution, the authority to levy taxes and duties rests with Congress.
“The Government thus concedes, as it must, that the President enjoys no inherent authority to impose tariffs during peacetime,” Roberts wrote, adding that the United States “is not at war with every nation in the world.”
The decision delivered a significant setback to Trump’s trade agenda, which relied on emergency powers to impose broad tariffs on imports. The court’s ruling also cast uncertainty over approximately $175 billion collected from U.S. importers under the contested tariffs.
Reacting angrily, Trump denounced the ruling as “ridiculous” and criticized certain justices, alleging without evidence that the court had been influenced by foreign interests. Despite the setback, he announced an immediate 10% tariff on imports from all countries, on top of existing duties, invoking a provision that allows temporary tariffs of up to 15% for 150 days.
Hours after the ruling, Trump signed an executive order repealing the tariffs invalidated by the court and issued a new proclamation imposing a 10% duty on most imported goods for 150 days. The White House said exemptions would apply to certain items, including critical minerals, metals and energy products.
Financial markets initially surged following the ruling but later pared gains as analysts warned of renewed uncertainty in global trade.
Since returning to office 13 months ago, Trump had asserted he possessed “extraordinary power” to impose tariffs of unlimited scope by citing a national emergency under IEEPA. The court rejected that interpretation, reinforcing limits on executive authority in trade policy.
