Supreme Court strikes down Trump’s sweeping tariffs, upending one of his key policies

The Supreme Court ruled President Donald Trump does not have the legal authority to impose sweeping global tariffs without congressional approval, upending one of his key policies and issuing a rare constraint on his attempts to expand presidential powers.

The 6-3 decision concerned tariffs imposed under an emergency powers law, including “reciprocal” tariffs that Trump levied on nearly every other country.

It was a rare setback for the administration, from a Supreme Court with a 6-3 conservative majority that has regularly backed Trump on various contentious cases since he took office. Conservative Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.

Based on oral arguments in November, the tariffs dispute seemed to be going against Trump, with the justices indicating Trump may not have the authority to impose tariffs under a law designed for use during a national emergency.

The legal question was whether a 1977 law called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, which allows the president to regulate imports when there is a national emergency, extends the power to impose global tariffs of unspecified duration and breadth.

The Constitution states that the power to set tariffs is assigned to Congress. The 1977 law, which does not specifically mention tariffs, says the president can “regulate” imports and exports when he deems there to be an emergency, which occurs when there is an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to the nation.

Trump invoked the law to impose so-called “reciprocal” tariffs on goods imported from nearly every foreign trading partner to address what he called a national emergency related to U.S. trade deficits.

Until Trump began his second term in January, no president had ever used the law to set tariffs on imports. Lower courts ruled against the Trump administration, with both sides asking the Supreme Court to issue a definitive ruling.

The decision does not affect all of Trump’s tariffs, leaving in place ones he imposed on steel and aluminum using different laws, for example, NBC News noted. But it upends his tariffs in two categories: country-by-country or “reciprocal” tariffs, which range from 34% for China to a 10% baseline for the rest of the world, and a 25% tariff Trump imposed on some goods from Canada, China and Mexico for what the administration said was their failure to curb the flow of fentanyl.

Trump could seek to reimpose the tariffs, using other laws, NBC News reported.

The court heard the case on an expedited basis and consolidated two underlying challenges brought by small businesses affected by the tariffs and a coalition of states.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.