Supreme Court strikes down Trump’s sweeping global tariffs

The Supreme Court of the United States has struck down some of the most expansive global tariffs introduced by Donald Trump, reshaping the legal landscape around executive authority in trade policy and creating fresh uncertainty in international markets.

In a 6–3 decision, the court ruled that the legal basis used by the administration to impose sweeping tariffs did not grant the president authority to do so. The judgment paves the way for potentially billions of dollars in refunds to businesses and states that challenged the measures.

At the centre of the case was the administration’s reliance on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a statute that allows the president to regulate economic activity during national emergencies. The White House argued the tariffs were justified under this authority as part of efforts to address drug trafficking and trade imbalances.

However, challengers contended that while the law permits regulation, it makes no explicit provision for imposing tariffs — a power traditionally reserved for Congress.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts emphasised that when Congress delegates tariff powers, it does so clearly and with defined limits.

The ruling affects duties introduced last year on imports from numerous countries, initially targeting partners such as Mexico, Canada, and China before expanding significantly during the administration’s “Liberation Day” policy push in April.

Supporters of the tariffs had argued they would stimulate domestic investment and revitalise US manufacturing. Critics, however, warned of higher import costs and broader economic ripple effects.

The case was widely viewed as a defining test of executive reach in trade matters — and of the judiciary’s readiness to scrutinise policy initiatives central to the administration’s agenda.

With the decision now issued, the balance between presidential emergency powers and congressional authority over taxation and trade has been more sharply defined, setting an important precedent for future administrations.