Ahmed Kamel – Egypt Daily News
In a significant rebuke to presidential authority, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled Friday that President Donald Trump exceeded his constitutional powers by imposing sweeping tariffs under a statute intended for national emergencies.
In a 6–3 decision, the court held that the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the president to unilaterally impose tariffs. The ruling invalidates several of Trump’s most expansive trade measures, dealing a rare setback to an administration that has generally found a receptive audience in the court’s conservative majority.
Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion, joined by the court’s three liberal justices as well as fellow conservatives Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett. In his opinion, Roberts wrote that the president had asserted “extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration and scope,” but pointed to no statutory basis in which Congress explicitly authorized such use of IEEPA.
“We hold that IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs,” Roberts concluded.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh and Samuel Alito dissented.
Limits of Emergency Authority
The Constitution assigns the power to levy tariffs to Congress. While presidents have long exercised delegated trade authority, Trump relied on IEEPA a law that permits the executive to “regulate” imports and exports during a declared national emergency arising from an “unusual and extraordinary threat.” The statute does not explicitly mention tariffs, and prior administrations had not used it as a basis for imposing across-the-board import duties.
Lower federal courts had already ruled against the administration in two consolidated cases, prompting both sides to seek a definitive resolution from the Supreme Court.
The decision leaves intact certain tariffs Trump imposed under separate statutory authorities, including duties on steel and aluminum. However, it strikes down two major categories enacted under IEEPA: country-specific “reciprocal” tariffs which ranged from 34 percent on China to a 10 percent baseline for other trading partners and a 25 percent tariff applied to certain goods from Canada, China and Mexico, which the administration justified as a response to those countries’ alleged failure to curb fentanyl trafficking.
The administration could attempt to reimpose similar tariffs under different trade laws, though doing so would likely trigger new legal and political battles.
A Rare Judicial Setback
The ruling marks an unusual defeat for Trump at a court with a 6–3 conservative majority, particularly during his second term, which began in January. The decision also highlights ongoing judicial scrutiny of executive power across administrations.
In recent years, the court has shown skepticism toward broad unilateral actions by the executive branch. In a high-profile case during the presidency of Joe Biden, the court blocked a sweeping student loan forgiveness plan, invoking the “major questions doctrine.” That doctrine holds that Congress must clearly authorize policies with vast economic and political consequences.
Legal analysts say the same reasoning loomed over the tariff case: measures with nationwide economic impact require unmistakable congressional approval.
Business and State Challenges
The case arose from lawsuits filed by several businesses, including V.O.S. Selections Inc., a wine and spirits importer; Plastic Services and Products, a pipe and fittings company; and two educational toy companies. A coalition of states led by Oregon also challenged the tariffs, arguing that the president had bypassed Congress and inflicted economic harm on importers and consumers.
According to data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection, tariffs imposed under IEEPA had generated approximately $130 billion in revenue as of mid-December. Trump, however, has cited significantly higher figures up to $3 trillion when factoring in trade agreements negotiated during his administration.
Broader Trade and Political Implications
The ruling injects uncertainty into the administration’s trade agenda and may complicate ongoing negotiations with key trading partners. Financial markets and business groups are now assessing whether Congress will move to clarify the scope of presidential trade authority or whether the White House will pivot to alternative statutory tools.
Beyond trade policy, the decision reinforces a constitutional boundary: while the president retains broad authority in matters of foreign affairs and national emergencies, that power is not unlimited. When economic measures carry sweeping domestic consequences, the court signaled, the ultimate authority rests with Congress.
Whether the administration chooses to pursue new tariffs through different legal channels or seek legislative backing, will determine the next phase in an evolving debate over executive power in American economic policy.
