Supreme Court rules Trump's tariffs under emergency powers unconstitutional
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Friday that President Trump's unlimited tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 are unconstitutional, stating that the law does not authorize the president to exercise tariff powers so broadly. Chief Justice John Roberts noted in the opinion that the Constitution explicitly grants the power to tax to Congress and cannot be transferred through vague language. The ruling pertains to multiple tariffs announced by the Trump administration in April and finalized in August, with plaintiffs including 7 businesses and 12 states. Although the ruling is in effect, the government may still impose some tariffs under other laws.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Friday that President Donald Trump's imposition of unlimited tariffs under emergency powers legislation was unconstitutional, marking a major legal setback for the president's trade policy.
In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court rejected Trump's claim that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977 granted him broad authority to impose global tariffs, stating clearly that the power to impose tariffs belongs exclusively to Congress.
"The Framers recognized the unique importance of this taxing power—a power that 'very clearly' includes the authority to impose tariffs,"the rulingstated.
The opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, determined that Congress's taxing power cannot be transferred through vague language, thereby rejecting the government's argument that terms such as "regulate" and "imports" in IEEPA granted the president broad tariff authority.
"Recognizing the unique importance of the taxing power, and having just emerged from a revolution sparked in large part by 'no taxation without representation,' the Framers vested in Congress the 'sole... power to touch the people's pockets,'" the ruling stated.
The opinion also rejected the government's argument that a presidential declaration of a national emergency was sufficient to unlock extraordinary tariff powers, and that such powers could only be limited by a "veto by an absolute majority in Congress."
"That view, if adopted, would represent a 'transformative expansion' of the president's tariff authority," the ruling noted.
Because Congress holds the "power of the purse," any broad, discretionary transfer of tariff-setting authority would require clear and specific statutory language, rather than general or vague wording.
"When Congress has delegated its tariff power, it has done so in explicit terms and under strict limitations," the ruling stated.
The Trump administrationappealed to the Supreme Courtlast fall, aftertwo lower courts ruledthat the president's actions earlier this year, bypassing Congress's constitutional authorization to set tariffs (including so-called reciprocal tariffs), exceeded his authority. The president argued that these tariffs were reasonable measures in response to national emergencies arising from the U.S. trade deficit and fentanyl trafficking from Canada, China, and Mexico.
The government hadurged the courtto act quickly, arguing that legal uncertainty over tariffs was harming trade negotiations. The Supreme Courtagreed to expedite reviewand consolidated three lawsuits challenging tariffs that Trumpannouncedin April andfinalizedin August. The plaintiffs in these lawsuits included 7 businesses and 12 states.
Despite Friday's ruling, the Trump administration has alreadyestablished numerous other tariffsunder laws with more historical precedent, including a series of industry-specific tariffs on goods such as steel, automobiles, and furniture under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. Trump also hasother tools availableto continue implementing tariffs, although not as broadly as when using IEEPA.