BREAKING: Supreme Court Rules 6-3 Against Trump Tariffs

The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a 6–3 decision Friday striking down President Donald J. Trump’s sweeping global tariff framework, dealing a temporary blow to a key pillar of his second-term economic strategy.

At issue was President Trump’s use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a statute traditionally invoked during national emergencies involving foreign threats. The administration relied on the law to implement reciprocal tariffs on most countries beginning last year, arguing that chronic trade deficits and unfair foreign trade practices constituted an economic emergency requiring decisive action.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts concluded that the IEEPA “does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.”

Roberts was joined by Associate Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch, as well as the Court’s three liberal justices.

Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented, according to the Associated Press.

The ruling centers on the scope of executive authority under emergency powers law. President Trump declared the long-running U.S. trade deficit a national emergency prior to taking office and used the IEEPA as the legal mechanism to advance what he has consistently described as a mission to restore balance, protect American workers, and defend domestic manufacturing from foreign manipulation.

Supporters of the president argue that the Constitution grants the executive branch broad authority to respond to international economic threats, particularly when Congress has delegated emergency powers through statutes like the IEEPA. Critics, however, maintain that tariff authority rests more squarely with Congress and must be explicitly granted.

As of publication, President Trump had not issued a formal response to the decision. Given his long-standing commitment to reshaping global trade policy and prioritizing American industry, observers expect the administration to explore alternative legal pathways to continue advancing its America First trade agenda.

The ruling sets the stage for a renewed constitutional debate over separation of powers — and whether courts should limit a president’s ability to respond aggressively to economic imbalances that many voters see as decades in the making.