The high court ruled that a 1977 emergency statute does not authorize sweeping tariffs, prompting sharp criticism from President Donald Trump.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Friday that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize a president to impose broad-based tariffs, delivering a significant setback to President Donald Trump’s trade agenda.
In a 6–3 decision, the Court concluded that the 1977 emergency statute does not grant the executive branch authority to levy tariffs of “unlimited amount, duration, and scope.” The majority opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, along with Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.
Following the decision, President Trump criticized the ruling during a press conference, calling it “deeply disappointing” and stating he was “absolutely ashamed” by the justices who ruled against him. A replay of the president’s remarks is available here.
The decision clarifies that future presidents seeking to impose sweeping tariffs must rely on specific statutory authority granted by Congress or obtain new legislative approval.
In a consolidated opinion addressing Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc., the Court held that Congress did not clearly authorize tariff-setting power under IEEPA. The ruling affirms a lower court judgment invalidating the tariffs and vacates a separate district court decision for lack of jurisdiction.
The cases stem from executive actions taken after Trump returned to office in 2025. The president declared national emergencies related to illegal drug trafficking from Canada, Mexico, and China, as well as what he described as “large and persistent” trade deficits. Invoking IEEPA, the administration imposed a 25% tariff on most imports from Canada and Mexico, a 10% tariff on most Chinese imports, and later expanded reciprocal tariffs of at least 10% on imports from other trading partners. Tariff rates on Chinese goods were later increased, in some cases reaching 145% when combined with prior measures.
Two groups challenged the actions in federal court. In Washington, D.C., Learning Resources, Inc., along with a co-plaintiff, argued that IEEPA does not authorize tariffs. Separately, five small businesses and 12 states filed suit before the U.S. Court of International Trade. That court granted summary judgment to the challengers, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit largely affirmed, concluding that IEEPA’s authority to “regulate … importation” did not extend to sweeping tariff measures.
Writing for the Court in key portions of the opinion, Chief Justice Roberts grounded the decision in Article I of the Constitution, which grants Congress the power to “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.” The administration acknowledged that the president does not possess inherent authority to impose tariffs during peacetime and relied exclusively on IEEPA.
The majority applied the “major questions” doctrine, stating that courts should not interpret ambiguous statutory language as delegating powers of vast economic and political significance without clear congressional authorization. The opinion emphasized that prior tariff delegations by Congress were explicit and limited, while IEEPA contains no direct reference to tariffs or duties.
The Court also noted that in nearly five decades since IEEPA’s enactment, no president had used it to impose tariffs of this nature. That absence of precedent weighed against the administration’s interpretation.
Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, agreed that IEEPA does not authorize tariffs but stated the case could be resolved through traditional statutory interpretation without invoking the major questions doctrine. Justice Jackson wrote separately to address legislative history.
In dissent, Justices Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh argued that IEEPA’s language permitting regulation of importation was sufficiently broad to include tariff authority. They cautioned that the majority’s approach could limit presidential flexibility in matters involving foreign affairs and national security.
The ruling reinforces Congress’ authority over taxation and trade policy and limits the executive branch’s reliance on emergency statutes for broad economic actions. The Court emphasized that it was not addressing presidential authority under other trade statutes.
Original article
Comments