Supreme Court Rules Against Trump’s Expansive Tariff Authority

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled on Friday that President Donald Trump’s use of the International Economic Emergency Powers Act to unilaterally levy tariffs is an unlawful overextension of executive authority.

In a 6-3 ruling, the justices wrote that the IEEPA does not provide sufficient justification for the president to unilaterally impose tariffs. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.

“The President asserts the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope. In light of the breadth, history, and constitutional context of that asserted authority, he must identify clear congressional authorization to exercise it,” the opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts reads. “IEEPA’s grant of authority to ‘regulate . . . importation’ falls short. IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties.”

The ruling was a relatively rare rebuke of President Donald Trump’s authority, which the Supreme Court has repeatedly expanded over the years. Many suspected that the president’s tariffs wouldn’t be upheld by the court, which sounded skeptical of the federal government’s arguments during a November hearing.

Still, Trump administration officials continued to publicly project confidence in their position.

“I think it went very well,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told reporters at the White House after the November hearing. “I think the solicitor general made a very powerful case for the need for the president to have the IEEPA powers, and I believe that the other side, in a way, fell flat on their face.”

In a statement in response to the ruling, the plaintiffs, led by Learning Resources, Inc., a family-owned business negatively impacted by the tariffs, described the ruling as its own kind of “Liberation Day.”

Over the past several months, Trump has sporadically made posts to Truth Social about the pending ruling, arguing that a rule against the Trump administration would be damaging to the American people. In January, he called the Supreme Court’s decision “one of the most important ever.”

“Without tariffs, what would you do? You know what? Everybody would be bankrupt,” Trump said in Georgia on Thursday. “Everybody. The whole country would be bankrupt. And I have to wait for this decision. I’ve been waiting forever. Forever. And the language is clear that I have the right to do it as president. I have the right to put tariffs on for national security purposes.”

Trump repeatedly claims that the tariffs have brought in “trillions of dollars.” While tariff revenue has increased, only 194.8 billion in inflation-adjusted revenue has been brought in according to the Yale Budget Lab.

It’s unclear what happens next: It’s possible that the Trump administration would be forced to pay back the importers it collected from for what is now illegal tariff revenue.

The court did not clarify whether the administration will have to pay back importers, or how it should do so. In his dissent, Kavanaugh warned that refunds could pose problems.

“The interim effects of the Court’s decision could be substantial,” he wrote. “The United States may be required to refund billions of dollars to importers who paid the IEEPA tariffs, even though some importers may have already passed on costs to consumers or others. As was acknowledged at oral argument, the refund process is likely to be a ‘mess.’”

As for the future of tariffs, the Trump administration has other statutes it could defer to. Top Trump trade adviser Peter Navarro has signaled last year that the administration was considering use of Section 122 and then Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.

“Even if the Supreme Court disagrees with us, we have a backup plan that’ll get these things in place right away,” Navarro said on Fox Business in December. “So we’re gonna win either way.”

But none are as expansive as IEEPA, experts have told NOTUS, which the Supreme Court just struck down.

In remarks at the Economic Club of Minnesota in January, Bessent acknowledged that having to resort to other tariff authorities would make it more difficult for the president to use tariffs as a negotiating tool. But Bessent thinks they will be able to make up tariff revenue through these other avenues.