The Latest: Supreme Court strikes down Trump’s tariffs, upending central plank of economic agenda

Audio By Carbonatix

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:

Friday’s decision upends a core set of tariffs that Trump imposed using the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA. That includes the “Liberation Day” tariffs the president slapped on nearly every country in the world last spring — as well as and other IEEPA-based levies he imposed on Canada, Mexico and China. Trump also cited IEEPA to impose additional tariffs on Brazil over the trial of former President Jair Bolsonaro, and on India over its purchases of Russian oil.

Despite Friday’s ruling, other sweeping levies remain in place. Trump used another law — Section 232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act — to slap impose sectoral tariffs on steel and aluminum, cars, copper, lumber and products like kitchen cabinets worldwide. And the president has plenty of other options to keep taxing imports aggressively.

President Trump still has options to keep taxing imports aggressively even after the Supreme Court struck down the tariffs he imposed last year on nearly every country on earth.

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.

“It’s hard to see any pathway here where tariffs end,” said Georgetown trade law professor Kathleen Claussen. “I am pretty convinced he could rebuild the tariff landscape he has now using other authorities.”

▶ Read more

Norm Eisen, a former U.S. ambassador to the Czech Republic who was a legal adviser to Democrats during Trump’s first impeachment, called the tariff decision a “victory for the Constitution and for Congress’ Article I authority over taxes and tariffs. The International Emergency Economic Powers Act provides limited authority to the President to take actions to regulate imports to respond to unusual and extraordinary threats.”

Eisen, the executive chair of the Democracy Defenders Fund, said in a statement that the administration had tried to distort the emergency powers act to address routine trade deficits and disagreements “and the Supreme Court correctly smacked that down.”

Sarah House, a senior economist at Wells Fargo, said the ruling will provide some additional certainty for companies, many of which have already adjusted to the tariffs, by shifting their supply chains to lower-tariffs countries.

The additional certainty could lead to modestly higher investment and job creation by businesses, after they slammed the brakes on hiring last year in part because of tariff uncertainty. The economy added less than 200,000 jobs in 2025, the government said last week, the fewest since the pandemic.

“Uncertainty hasn’t gone away,” she cautioned. “There are still a lot of questions out there: What about refunds? What other statutes will the administration use to impose the tariffs? Will your products fall under those?”

In Mexico, which has been vigorously negotiating on tariffs with the administration, President Claudia Sheinbaum noted the ruling in her morning press briefing, saying “We’re going to wait and see its reach.”

Mexico, whose biggest trading partner is the U.S., has been able to dodge the brunt of the tariffs by more aggressively going after drug cartels under pressure from the Trump administration. The country recently stopped sending oil to its ally Cuba around the same time Trump threatened to impose tariffs on countries that sent gas to the island.

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum speaks at the National Palace in Mexico City, Nov. 7, 2025. (AP Photo/Marco Ugarte, File)

While uncertainty simmered in Latin America, Gabriella Siller, analyst for the Mexican financial group Banco Base, said that the order was “good news” for Mexico. The Mexican pesos jumped Friday morning.

Siller added that Trump can still use other tariff measures and pull other political levers to pressure Mexico, especially in the lead up to renegotiations of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement.

“It’s a pressure cooker. We’ll see how Trump responds. His responses are usually strong and aggressive, and could trigger a new episode of high volatility” for Mexico, Siller said.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

“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.

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 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.

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.”

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.

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.

“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.

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’!”

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

They were estimated to have an economic impact of some $3 trillion over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

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.

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.