The US Supreme Court delivered a stinging rebuke to President Donald Trump on Friday, striking down his sweeping "reciprocal" tariffs imposed on most trading partners. In a 6-3 decision, the justices ruled that Trump overstepped his authority by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977 to enact these measures.

The court emphasised that the US Constitution reserves the power to levy taxes and tariffs exclusively for Congress, not the executive branch.

Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative, authored the majority opinion, which was joined by the court's three liberal justices—Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—along with conservatives Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett.

This unusual coalition underscored the ruling's grounding in strict constitutional interpretation rather than partisan lines. The dissent came from conservative Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito, who argued that IEEPA provided sufficient flexibility for presidential action in trade emergencies.

At the heart of the dispute were tariffs Trump announced in April 2025 during a White House Rose Garden event titled "Make America Wealthy Again." He declared persistent US trade deficits a national emergency, justifying reciprocal duties on imports from dozens of countries. Trump framed these as essential for economic security, warning that without them, America would be "defenceless and ruined" against nations he accused of exploiting US markets.

The administration collected over $133 billion in revenue from these tariffs by December 2025, according to federal data. However, the policy faced swift legal challenges from small businesses, US states, and coalitions like big-box retailer Costco, which argued that IEEPA—originally designed for sanctions and asset freezes during genuine crises—was being twisted into a blank cheque for tariff imposition. Lower courts had already sided against the tariffs, and the Supreme Court upheld those decisions.

The majority opinion quoted the Constitution directly, noting that the Framers granted Congress "alone . . . access to the pockets of the people." It clarified that the executive lacks inherent peacetime authority to impose tariffs. The justices reasoned that if Congress had intended IEEPA to include such "distinct and extraordinary power," it would have stated so explicitly, as it has in other tariff-specific statutes.

This ruling revives a long-standing debate over presidential trade powers, which have expanded since the 1930s through delegated authorities like Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act and Section 301 of the Trade Act.

Trump, during his first term, aggressively used these to target steel, aluminium, and Chinese goods. His 2025 tariffs built on that approach but pushed further by declaring broad trade imbalances an emergency under IEEPA—a law typically reserved for threats like terrorism or foreign hostilities.

Economically, the tariffs' impact has been profound. The Congressional Budget Office projects a $3 trillion hit to the US economy over the next decade, factoring in higher consumer prices, disrupted supply chains, and retaliatory measures from partners like the European Union and China. Importers paid the duties upfront, passing costs to consumers; industries from electronics to automobiles reported squeezed margins and job losses.

Trump's reaction was swift and furious. During a meeting with state governors, he branded the decision a "disgrace," insisting his authority was "clear" for national security tariffs against countries "ripping us off for years." Just a day earlier, at a Georgia steel plant, he lamented having to await the court's verdict, portraying it as an unnecessary hurdle to his America First agenda.

The ruling's immediate effects include potential refunds for affected businesses, with cases already queued in lower courts. Global markets reacted positively, with shares in import-dependent sectors rising on expectations of lower costs. Trading partners hailed it as a victory for multilateral trade rules, though some US manufacturers decried the loss of protective barriers.

Looking ahead, the decision may not end Trump's tariff ambitions. The administration has signalled plans to reimpose duties via alternative legal routes, such as congressional bills or narrower emergency declarations. Republicans in Congress, who control both chambers, could respond with new legislation granting explicit tariff powers—though divisions exist, with free-trade hawks wary of protectionism's costs.

This case highlights deepening tensions between executive overreach and congressional prerogative. Trump's tariff strategy marked a high-water mark in presidential unilateralism, but the Supreme Court's intervention reaffirms constitutional limits. As the 2026 midterms loom, the ruling could reshape debates on trade policy, forcing Trump to pivot toward legislative alliances.

In the broader geopolitical context, the tariffs strained alliances, prompting retaliatory levies on US exports like soybeans and whiskey. Nations from Canada to India recalibrated supply chains, accelerating de-globalisation trends. The court's action may ease these frictions, fostering renewed negotiations under frameworks like the USMCA.

Finally, this underscores the judiciary's role as a check on executive power in an era of economic nationalism. While Trump fumes, the ruling compels a return to Congress for trade warfare tools—a process that could either temper or entrench America's protectionist turn.

Agencies