US Supreme Court Voids Trump’s Emergency Tariffs, Shakes Core of Second-Term Trade Push

In a landmark ruling that reshapes the contours of presidential power over trade, the Supreme Court of the United States on Friday invalidated former President Donald Trump’s sweeping global tariffs, striking at the heart of a defining pillar of his second-term economic programme.

By a 6–3 majority, the court held that the Constitution clearly assigns the power to impose taxes — including tariffs — to Congress, not the executive branch.

The ruling centred on duties introduced under a 1977 emergency powers statute that the Trump administration had invoked to justify so-called “reciprocal” tariffs applied to nearly every major trading partner.

The case reached the court after a coalition of affected businesses and 12 US states challenged what they described as an unprecedented expansion of executive authority.

It marks the first major component of Trump’s second-term agenda to be tested before the nation’s highest court — a bench he reshaped during his first tenure by appointing three conservative justices.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts underscored that the Constitution “very clearly” vests the taxing authority in Congress.

“The Framers did not vest any part of the taxing power in the Executive Branch,” he wrote, signalling a firm boundary on presidential discretion in trade matters.

In dissent, Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh argued that the tariffs were permissible under the emergency statute cited by the administration.

Kavanaugh maintained that, whether or not the policy was sound, precedent and statutory interpretation supported its legality.

Notably, the majority stopped short of clarifying how the government should handle the billions of dollars already collected through the disputed tariffs. Major importers — including retail giant Costco — have begun seeking refunds through the courts.

Kavanaugh acknowledged that untangling repayments could prove “a mess,” echoing concerns raised during oral arguments.

While the judgment blocks the use of the specific emergency law for imposing tariffs, it does not entirely strip the president of trade tools.

The administration retains authority under other statutes to levy duties, though those avenues come with tighter procedural constraints and limits on scope. Senior officials have indicated they intend to preserve the broader tariff framework through alternative legal mechanisms.

At the heart of the dispute was the administration’s reliance on a 1977 law traditionally used by presidents to impose sanctions during national emergencies. Although invoked dozens of times in the past, it had never before been used to introduce wide-ranging import taxes.

The decision also comes against the backdrop of shifting trade dynamics. Earlier this month, Washington rolled back an additional 25% tariff on India that had been introduced on August 27 last year.

The reversal followed New Delhi’s agreement to halt purchases of Russian oil, boost imports of American crude, and deepen defence cooperation with the United States over the coming decade, according to a White House executive order.

The ruling represents a significant judicial check on executive power and injects fresh uncertainty into US trade policy, with implications likely to reverberate across global markets.

#USSupremeCourt #DonaldTrump #TariffRuling #USPolitics #GlobalTrade #ExecutivePower #EconomicPolicy