US President Donald Trump has moved swiftly to reassert his trade authority after the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that he lacked the power to unilaterally impose sweeping tariffs on imports, triggering a fresh legal and political battle over the limits of presidential power.
In a landmark 6-3 decision, the court found that Trump’s reliance on emergency powers to set tariffs without congressional approval exceeded his authority. Within hours, Trump responded by repealing the tariffs struck down by the court and announcing a new, temporary 10 per cent tariff on most imports, invoking Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974.
The ruling marks one of the most consequential judicial checks on executive trade authority in decades. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts grounded the opinion in the US Constitution’s allocation of taxing powers to Congress, quoting the clause that states: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.”
The decision undercuts the legal foundation Trump had used for more than a year to wage an expansive global tariff campaign. Since returning to office 13 months ago, Trump had argued that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) granted him the authority to impose tariffs of “unlimited amount, duration, and scope” by declaring a national emergency.
The court rejected that interpretation, saying the statute did not authorise the sweeping tariff regime Trump had implemented. The judgment also leaves uncertain the fate of an estimated USD 175 billion collected from US importers under the now-invalidated measures.
Trump reacted angrily, criticising individual justices and insisting he would continue his trade strategy. “I'm ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed, for not having the courage to do what's right for our country,” he told reporters at the White House. He also claimed, without evidence, that the majority had been influenced by foreign interests.
Despite the setback, Trump quickly pivoted to an alternative legal route. Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 allows a president to impose tariffs of up to 15 per cent for up to 150 days to address what the law describes as “fundamental international payments problems.” Trump’s proclamation sets a 10 per cent tariff for 150 days, with exemptions for certain goods including critical minerals, metals and energy products.
Trade experts say the move is significant because no previous president has invoked Section 122 in this manner. However, the authority is explicitly temporary and cannot be extended beyond 150 days without congressional approval, raising the prospect of further confrontation with lawmakers.
The court’s ruling also casts doubt on trade agreements negotiated by Trump’s envoys in recent months under the threat of higher tariffs. Those deals were often framed as leverage-driven concessions by foreign governments seeking relief from punitive duties. With the legal basis of those tariffs now curtailed, trading partners may reassess both the durability and enforceability of such arrangements.
At the heart of the dispute is a constitutional question over the separation of powers. While Congress has delegated aspects of trade policy to the executive branch over decades, the court’s majority signalled that such delegations have limits, particularly when they touch on core taxing powers.
Legal analysts say further litigation is likely, particularly over the scope and justification of the new tariffs imposed under the 1974 law. Any challenge could test whether the administration can demonstrate the “fundamental international payments problems” required by statute.
For now, the ruling represents a rare instance of the judiciary directly constraining a president’s trade agenda. But Trump’s rapid use of alternative statutory authority underscores how much flexibility remains within US trade law — and ensures that the broader global trade confrontation he has championed is far from over. |
