In a significant setback for President Donald Trump’s administration, the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down his emergency tariffs on imports.
On Friday, Feb. 20, the Court ruled that Trump exceeded his authority by imposing sweeping tariffs on goods from nearly all U.S. trading partners, according to The New York Times. The decision, delivered in a 6–3 vote, follows earlier rulings from three lower courts that had already deemed the tariffs unlawful.
Trump triggered global attention last year when he invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977 to justify tariffs affecting imports from more than 100 countries. The move marked an unprecedented use of the statute, as no prior president had applied the law to implement tariffs.
Under the policy, most imported goods were subjected to a 10% baseline tariff, while certain nations faced higher duties unless they agreed to new trade terms with the United States. Additional tariffs were also imposed on select imports from Mexico, Canada, and China.
The measures prompted swift international retaliation, with multiple countries raising taxes on American goods. Financial markets reacted sharply, as U.S. stocks declined and lawmakers from both major parties voiced criticism.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court majority reaffirmed that the power to levy taxes and tariffs rests with Congress. The justices concluded that IEEPA does not grant the president the authority to impose tariffs in the manner Trump had attempted.
The decision nullifies the 10% baseline tariff announced during Trump’s “Liberation Day” speech, along with the drug trafficking-related tariffs targeting Canada, Mexico, and China. It also eliminates the 145% effective tariff rate applied to many Chinese imports.
“The President asserts the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote. “In light of the breadth, history, and constitutional context of that asserted authority, he must identify clear congressional authorization to exercise it.”
Roberts added, “We hold that IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs.”
In a concurring opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch acknowledged that the ruling may disappoint supporters of expanded tariffs but emphasized the importance of legislative oversight.
“Yes, legislating can be hard and take time,” Gorsuch wrote. “But the deliberative nature of the legislative process was the whole point of its design… Through that process, the Nation can tap the combined wisdom of the people’s elected representatives.”
The ruling represents a major challenge for Trump’s trade agenda. Administration officials have indicated that the decision could disrupt ongoing negotiations with foreign governments and potentially require substantial refunds to importers.
Despite the setback, the administration signaled its intention to pursue alternative legal pathways. U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer previously stated that if the tariffs were overturned, officials would move quickly to reintroduce similar measures.
“The reality is the president is going to have tariffs as part of his trade policy going forward,” Greer said.
Meanwhile, economic research continues to debate the effectiveness of tariffs. A 2025 study published in Intereconomics concluded that tariff policies are generally ineffective at correcting trade imbalances and may worsen economic instability.
Trump has consistently defended tariffs as a cornerstone of national strategy.
“If we didn’t have tariffs, we would be exposed as being a nothing,” Trump said in an October interview. “Tariffs are a very important tool for our defense, for our national security.”
