The U.S. Supreme Court has delivered a brutal takedown of President Donald Trump’s signature economic policy, ruling that he overstepped his authority to impose widespread tariffs on countries around the globe.
In a major blow for the president—who called the case “literally, life of death for our country”—the conservative-dominated court, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, found that Trump’s use of emergency powers to impose tariffs on imports from more than 100 countries was unlawful.
The 6-3 ruling, with Roberts and fellow conservatives Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett joining liberal justices, has undercut one of Trump’s biggest tools to reshape U.S. trade and exert pressure on other countries.
“The President asserts the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope. In light of the breadth, history, and constitutional context of that asserted authority, he must identify clear congressional authorization to exercise it,” Roberts wrote for the court.
The ruling on tariffs marks a major test for Trump’s presidential powers. But the court’s decision now places roughly $130–$150 billion in tariffs collected so far under a cloud, as some companies move to seek refunds from the administration on duties already paid.
Three conservative justices dissented: Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh. In his dissent, Kavanaugh warned of the potential mess ahead
“The Court says nothing today about whether, and if so how, the Government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers,” he said.
Trump has often boasted about using tariffs not just to boost revenue, but as leverage or punishment against America’s allies and enemies.
“If the Supreme Court rules against the United States of America on this National Security bonanza, WE’RE SCREWED!” he wrote on Truth Social.
The president was in a closed-door meeting with governors at the White House on Friday when the ruling was handed down. He reportedly told governors the decision was “a disgrace” and embarked on a profanity-laced rant against the court, but signaled that he had a back-up plan.
MAGA acolytes were also livid.
“Now globalists win, factories investments may reverse, and American workers lose again,” said Ohio Senator Bernie Moreno, who called the decision a “betrayal”.
Others, however, welcomed the decision. “One win for a constitutional republic over Trumpian authoritarianism,” said former Republican-turned-Midas Touch editor Ron Filipkowski.
The case stemmed from Trump’s “Liberation Day” decision last April to invoke the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)—a statute historically used for targeted sanctions and economic controls in crises.
It allowed the administration to declare a national emergency to justify a suite of “reciprocal” tariffs on goods from China, Mexico, Canada and dozens of other trading partners.
But during oral arguments in November, several justices expressed skepticism about the government’s position that the general statutory language allowing the president to “regulate importation” included the power to impose taxes.
For instance, Roberts was quick to bring up that the ability to impose taxes “has always been a core power of Congress.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee, asked a series of pointed questions about whether there were statutes that bestow tariff authority and appeared unsatisfied with the answers of the government’s lawyer, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer.
And Justice Neil Gorsuch, another Trump appointee, also grilled Sauer, demanding to know where the administration would draw the line on the president’s authority in foreign affairs and on Congress’ delegation of the power to act.
The U.S. brought in $264 billion in revenue in 2025 from both the new tariffs and pre-existing ones. That was up from the $79 billion in duties collected in 2024.
Friday’s decision could spark years of litigation and administrative processes if companies that have paid duties now seek refunds.
Dozens of companies, including Costco, Revlon, Bumble Bee and Kawasaki, had earlier filed preemptive lawsuits to seek refunds in the event that the Supreme Court found the tariffs illegal.
However, in an interview earlier this year, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said that if the court ruled against Trump, the U.S. Treasury had enough funds to cover the costs of any refunds. But he argued that businesses were not likely to pass those refunds back to consumers.
“It won’t be a problem if we have to do it, but I can tell you that if it happens—which I don’t think it’s going to—it’s just a corporate boondoggle,” Bessent told Reuters.
“Costco, who’s suing the US government, are they going to give the money back to their clients?”
Last month, a study released by the Kiel Institute found despite the president’s repeated claims, American consumers paid 96 percent of the cost of Trump’s tariffs, not foreign exporters.
It found that in the long run, U.S. companies will see margins shrink while consumers face higher prices.
Those countries trading with the u.S. will face lower sales and face pressure to find new trade partners, an outcome that has already been seen to some extent as countries like Canada engage in talks to promote more trade with China.
