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 the tariffs Trump unilaterally imposed under an emergency powers law, including the sweeping “reciprocal” tariffs 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.
The 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.
“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 Latest:
British government expects its ‘privileged trading position’ to continue
The British government said it expects the U.K.’s “privileged trading position” with the U.S. to continue after Trump’s tariffs were struck down by the country’s Supreme Court.
The U.K. received the lowest reciprocal tariff rate of 10% from the U.S. A subsequent deal saw further carve-outs for Britain’s steel industry and car manufacturers.
“The U.K. enjoys the lowest reciprocal tariffs globally, and under any scenario we expect our privileged trading position with the U.S. to continue,” a government spokesman said. “We will work with the Administration to understand how the ruling will affect tariffs for the U.K. and the rest of the world.”
Trump reacts to SCOTUS decision in real time
President Trump described the Supreme Court decision as “a disgrace” when he was notified in real time during his morning meeting with several governors.
That’s according to someone with direct knowledge of the president’s reaction, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the private conversation. Trump was meeting privately with nearly two dozen governors from both parties when the decision was released.
Trading partners are prepared and are unlikely to walk away from recent deals, says a former trade official
Wendy Cutler, a former U.S. trade negotiator, said U.S. trading partners were aware of the risks Trump faced in using the emergency clause to impose tariffs.
“Nevertheless, they chose to conclude deals with Washington, convinced that other statutes would be utilized to keep the tariffs in place,” said Cutler, now vice president of the Asia Society Policy Institute.
“They are waiting to see the Administration’s Plan B,” she said. “Walking away from the deals announced in recent months does not seem to be in the cards.”
The Trump administration this month signed trade deals with Taiwan and Indonesia.
Neal Katyal, who argued the case at SCOTUS, calls decision ‘complete and total victory’
Katyal, the former Acting Solicitor General of the United States, told The Associated Press: “the decision today is everything we asked the Supreme Court to do.”
“It is a complete and total victory for the challenge to President Trump’s tariffs. It’s a reaffirmation of our deepest constitutional values and the idea that Congress, not any one man, controls the power to tax the American people.
Canada’s Chamber of Commerce CEO says this is not a reset of US trade policy
“The Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the use of IEEPA tariff powers is a legal ruling, not a reset of U.S. trade policy. This is certainly not the last chapter of this never-ending story,” Candace Laing, the President and CEO of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce said in a statement.
“Canada should prepare for new, blunter mechanisms to be used to reassert trade pressure, potentially with broader and more disruptive effects,” Laing said.
Cornell economist expects the ruling to weaken Trump’s hands in trade talks but not to fundamentally alter the process
Eswar Prasad, an economist at Cornell University, said the the decision will create procedural delays and complicate the process of imposing tariffs. But, it is unlikely to alter the course, he said.
“The ruling sharply constrains the Trump administration’s aggressive use of tariffs without Congressional approval. Still, it is unlikely to deter the administration from pursuing other avenues to impose tariffs,” he said, noting the Trump administration has made it clear that it is prepared to re-impose similar levels of tariffs using other tools.
Senate Democratic Leader Schumer says tariff ruling is ‘win for the wallets’ of American consumers
Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said in a statement that the Supreme Court’s ruling striking down President Donald Trump’s tariffs on Friday will “finally give families and small businesses the relief they deserve” and that Trump should end “this reckless trade war for good.”
He said the president’s “overreach failed.”
“We’ve said from day one: a president cannot ignore Congress and unilaterally slap tariffs on Americans,” Schumer said.
What’s next for tariffs
Experts say tariffs in some form are likely to be here to stay, and a refund process to refund the tens of billions of dollars collected under the tariffs might be cumbersome.
“That refund process could be easy, but it appears more likely that more litigation and paperwork will be required – a particularly unfair burden for smaller importers that lack the resources to litigate tariff refund claims yet never did anything wrong,” said Scott Lincicome, vice president of general economics at libertarian think tank Cato Institute.
He said Congress should provide lasting protection against tariffs.
“The tariff beatings will continue until Congress reclaims some of its constitutional authority over U.S. trade policy and checks the administration’s worst tariff impulses.”
Democratic lawmakers applaud Supreme Court ruling on tariffs
Some of the top Democratic lawmakers in the House are celebrating the Supreme Court’s decision striking down President Donald Trump’s global tariffs.
Rep. Richard Neal, the ranking Democratic lawmaker on the House Ways and Means Committee, calls the decision “a victory for the American people, the rule of law, and our standing in the global economy.”
Neal says the tariffs drove up grocery and energy prices and destabilized small businesses. He also says the administration must make consumers and businesses whole.
Rep. Brendan Boyle, the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said the tariffs weakened the economy and made it harder for families to make ends meet.
“Today’s decision is an important step toward protecting families and restoring basic economic fairness,” Boyle said.
Ruling helps provide certainty
Dave French, executive vice president of government relations for The National Retail Federation, the nation’s largest retail industry trade group, said Friday the ruling provides “much-needed certainty for U.S. businesses and manufacturers.”
“Clear and consistent trade policy is essential for economic growth, creating jobs and opportunities for American families,” he said.
The trade group urged the lower court to ensure “a seamless process” to refund the tariffs to U.S. importers. It noted that the refunds will serve as an economic boost and allow companies to reinvest in their operations, their workers and their customers.
House Democrats’ Super PAC vows to continue campaigning on Trump’s tariffs despite decision
“The Supreme Court’s decision clarifies the law, but it doesn’t rewrite history,” House Majority PAC, one of the main political action committees backing House Democratic candidates, said in a statement.
“Vulnerable House Republicans repeatedly voted to enable Trump’s tariffs, which raised prices and wreaked economic havoc on American families and businesses. Their constituents have paid the price, and House Majority PAC will ensure Republicans are held accountable for their votes come November,” the organization said in a statement.
Doing a ‘happy dance’
Ann Robinson owns Scottish Gourmet in Greensboro, N.C., which sells imported food and gifts from the U.K. as well as some items from India and China. She said she was “doing a happy dance” when she heard the news.
“I am overjoyed, but nervous about what new method the current administration will take to cover the deficit spending caused by the Big Beautiful Bill,” she said. “Tariffs were the easy answer — now that is gone.”
The 10% baseline tariff on U.K. goods put pressure on Robinson’s business.
“I ended up spending about $30,000 on tariffs in the fall season,” she said. Now she is wondering how long it will take to unwind the tariffs.
“I have goods flying in next week, and a container docking next Friday,” she said. “Time to schedule my ′ Say Goodbye to Tariffs Sale’!”
The court majority did not address whether companies could get refunds
Companies have collectively paid billions 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,” Justice Kavanaugh wrote in the dissent.
Small businesses hope for a quick refund
We Pay the Tariffs, a coalition of more than 800 small businesses that has been advocating against the tariffs, said a process for refunding the tariffs is imperative.
“A legal victory is meaningless without actual relief for the businesses that paid these tariffs,” executive director Dan Anthony said in a statement. “The administration’s only responsible course of action now is to establish a fast, efficient, and automatic refund process that returns tariff money to the businesses that paid it.”
‘Welcome news for American importers’
Scott Lincicome, at Cato’s Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies said the Supreme Court’s decision “is welcome news for American importers” and the U.S. economy, however “the federal government must refund the tens of billions of dollars in customs duties” that it collected pursuant to its perceived International Emergency Economic Powers Act power authority that the court says it does not have.
“That refund process could be easy, but it appears more likely that more litigation and paperwork will be required,” Lincicome said.
No immediate White House response
Trump had been steeling himself for the possibility that the Supreme Court could reject his power to declare an emergency and impose tariffs — but the White House stayed conspicuously quiet in the roughly 20 minutes after the court ruled against Trump.
The ruling delivered a colossal blow to Trump’s belief that he could impose import taxes without needing to go through Congress, adding to the chaos that Trump’s back and forth over tariffs since his return to the White House have provoked.
The president has previously said that losing the case would derail the U.S. economy and cause the budget deficit to explode without the tariff revenues.
Small business group applauds ruling
The CAMEO Network, a small business organization, praised the Supreme Court’s ruling Friday.
“Tariffs are holding back U.S. manufacturing, driving up costs for businesses and consumers, and slowing our economy,” said Carolina Martinez, CEO of CAMEO. “Our hope is that this ruling provides relief for business owners who have been navigating supply chain shocks and uncertainty over the past year.”
Previous rulings from the emergency docket
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.
US stocks hold relatively steady
U.S. stocks are edging higher in tentative trading after the Supreme Court struck down President Trump’s sweeping tariffs, which had been a source of volatility for the market.
The S&P 500 was 0.1% higher a few minutes after the court announced its ruling. It had been drifting between small gains and losses earlier in the morning, after discouraging reports showing slowing growth for the economy and faster inflation created relatively few ripples in the market.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average added 20 points, or less than 0.1%, and the Nasdaq composite rose 0.1%. Treasury yields also remained fairly muted in the bond market.
Can Trump still impose tariffs?
Yes, but not under the fast-acting law he previously used. Top administration officials have said they expect to keep the tariff framework in place under other authorities, though alternative laws carry greater limitations on the speed and severity of Trump’s actions.
What was the impact of Trump’s tariffs?
They were estimated to have an economic impact of some $3 trillion over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
What did each side argue?
The Justice Department argued that a 1977 law allowing the president to regulate imports during emergencies also includes setting tariffs. The challengers argued that the law doesn’t even mention tariffs and that 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 chief justice and 2 Trump appointees ruled against the president’s tariffs
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the court’s majority opinion, joined by Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, two of Trump’s three Supreme Court picks. The three liberal justices were also part of the majority.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Trump’s other appointee, wrote the main dissent, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
The Associated Press
