The US Supreme Court has ruled that President Donald Trump’s global tariffs are illegal.
In a 6-3 decision written by conservative Chief Justice John Roberts, the court agreed that President Trump exceeded his authority by invoking the 1977 law to impose the tariffs.
Recommended stories
list of two itemsend of list
The case marks the first major challenge to Trump’s policy agenda on the court, which he reorganized by appointing three conservative justices during his first term.
President Trump called the ruling “disgraceful.” The court remanded the case to the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) to oversee the refund process.
Here’s what we know:
What did the Supreme Court decide?
The court ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the president to unilaterally impose blanket tariffs.
“Our task today is simply to determine whether the authority granted to the President under IEEPA to ‘regulate imports’ includes the authority to impose tariffs. It does not,” Roberts wrote in his decision.
In their ruling, the justices said the 1977 law was designed to allow the president to respond to specific national emergencies, such as asset freezes and trade blocking, and not to overhaul U.S. trade policy through broad, sweeping tariffs.
The majority concluded that using IEEPA in this manner exceeded the authority Congress intended to grant.
“First and foremost, Donald Trump did something illegal. He broke the law,” Chris Edelson, a lecturer at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, told Al Jazeera.
“Donald Trump said the emergency law allowed him to impose tariffs, but the Supreme Court said, ‘Congress didn’t actually say that,'” he added.
What was President Trump’s legal reason for imposing tariffs in 2025?
President Trump argued that the United States faces six national emergencies and that the tariffs are justified under IEEPA.
He described the country’s long-standing trade deficit with the United States, which it has recorded every year since 1975, as a national emergency that threatens economic security.
He also cited a spike in overdoses related to the powerful opioid fentanyl, arguing that the drug’s entry into the United States constitutes another national emergency requiring executive action.
In the end, the case he presented centered on two tariff groups.
President Trump has argued that these measures are necessary to address the United States’ persistent trade deficit, and one set has been imposed on nearly every country.
The other targets Mexico, Canada, and China, saying these countries are responsible for the flow of illegal fentanyl into the United States.
How much money does it cost?
The Trump administration has not released tariff collection data since December 14th.
But Michael Pearce, chief U.S. economist at Oxford Economics, estimates that more than $130 billion in tariffs have already been collected under the state of emergency.
He said the ruling would likely trigger a lengthy legal battle over whether the money would need to be returned.
“What’s going to happen? Will we get this money back? Companies will ask for their money back. We don’t know what’s going to happen,” Edelson said.
Who were the judges who dissented from this decision?
Three conservative justices, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh, dissented from the decision.
They wrote that the ruling does not necessarily prohibit President Trump from imposing “most, if not all, similar tariffs under other statutory authorities.”
“Essentially, the court concluded today that the President checked the wrong legal box by relying on IEEPA rather than another law to impose these tariffs,” Kavanaugh wrote.
Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, who were appointed by President Trump during his first term, fully agreed with Chief Justice Roberts’ majority opinion.
Can President Trump still impose tariffs after the Supreme Court ruling?
The president still has other legal tools to seek trade restrictions.
One option is Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which authorizes tariffs on national security grounds. This authority was used during President Trump’s first term to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum imports.
The other is Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows the United States to impose tariffs in response to unfair trade practices by other countries.
This was the legal basis for many tariffs imposed on China during President Trump’s previous trade disputes.
He could also pursue more targeted trade measures through existing anti-dumping and countervailing duty laws.
What was President Trump’s reaction?
President Trump criticized the ruling, arguing that the president should have broad trade powers.
“I can destroy trade, I can destroy countries. I can do whatever I want,” he said.
He complained that while he could impose an embargo, the court’s interpretation meant he couldn’t even “claim a dollar.”
“How ridiculous is that?” he said.
President Trump also praised Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s dissenting opinion and said he may lean on other judicial officials in the future.
“He’s right,” President Trump said. “You can actually charge a lot more than you were charging.”
Why is this ruling important?
Beyond Trump’s specific tariffs, the ruling could have implications for how future presidents use emergency powers, potentially narrowing the scope of unilateral action.
“The Supreme Court will follow the law, but that doesn’t mean President Donald Trump will get a blank check to do whatever he wants,” Al Jazeera’s Alan Fisher, reporting from Washington, D.C., said.
Bruce Fein, a former deputy U.S. attorney general and constitutional lawyer, said the ruling is a “clear signal” that the president does not have unlimited unilateral power.
