‘A disgrace’ — Trump knocks Supreme Court after striking tariff agenda

⚖️ Supreme Court strikes down Trump’s global tariffs

⚖️ 6-3 ruling says Congress — not president — controls taxing power

⚖️ Billions collected under emergency law now in legal limbo

WASHINGTON  — The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday struck down President Donald Trump’s sweeping global tariffs, ruling 6-3 that he overstepped his authority by imposing import taxes under an emergency powers law.

The decision delivers a major setback to Trump’s economic agenda and marks the first time his broad second-term policies have landed squarely before the nation’s highest court.

Trump insists he has other options

The Justices didn't buy the president's sweeping claims of authority to impose tariffs as he sees fit. But Trump can re-use tariff powers he deployed in his first term and can reach for others, including one that dates back to the Great Depression.

“Their decision is incorrect,” Trump said Friday, calling the Supreme Court justices who ruled against his tariffs “fools and lapdogs” during a press conference. “But it doesn’t matter because we have very powerful alternatives.”

Indeed, the president has already said he will impose a 10% global tariff under a trade law that allows such duties for 150 days. After that, they can only be extended by Congress.

Trump also said he would use a range of other laws and regulations to impose new tariffs, though most of those statutes would require a legal process before duties could be imposed. And he pointed to his ability to use licenses to restrain imports, but offered few details.

Trump had claimed nearly boundless authority to impose tariffs under 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). But opponents argued before the Supreme Court that that power wasn't necessary because Congress delegated tariff power to the White House in several other statutes — though it carefully limited the ways the president could use the authority.

High court says Constitution is clear

In the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the Constitution “very clearly” gives Congress — not the president — the power to impose taxes, including tariffs.

“The Framers did not vest any part of the taxing power in the Executive Branch,” Roberts wrote.

Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh dissented. Kavanaugh argued the tariffs were lawful under the statute in question, even if controversial as policy.

In New Jersey: Gov. Sherrill reacts

Emergency law doesn’t authorize tariffs

The case centered on Trump’s use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which allows presidents to regulate imports during declared national emergencies.

Trump invoked the law to impose sweeping “reciprocal” tariffs on nearly every country, citing trade deficits and drug trafficking concerns.

But the court’s majority said no president before Trump had used the law to impose tariffs — a key sign the authority doesn’t exist.

“And the fact that no President has ever found such power in IEEPA is strong evidence that it does not exist,” Roberts wrote.

The ruling leaned in part on the “major questions doctrine,” which requires Congress to clearly authorize actions of vast economic and political significance.

$133B collected — refunds unclear

The Treasury Department has collected more than $133 billion from tariffs imposed under the emergency law as of December. The long-term impact had been projected at nearly $3 trillion over a decade.

The court did not address whether companies will be refunded. Many businesses, including major retailers, have already filed lower-court claims seeking repayment.

Kavanaugh warned that sorting out refunds could be “a mess.”

Trump calls ruling ‘a disgrace’

Trump was meeting with governors from both parties when the ruling was released. According to a person familiar with the conversation, he called the decision “a disgrace.”

The White House did not immediately comment publicly.

Administration officials have signaled Trump may pursue tariffs under other, more limited trade authorities that remain available.

Broad political impact

Legal opposition to the tariffs crossed party lines, including libertarian and pro-business groups typically aligned with Republicans.

Neal Katyal, who argued the case for small businesses challenging the tariffs, called the ruling a “complete and total victory.”

“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,” he said.