Vance Rips Supreme Court’s Tariff Ruling As ‘Lawlessness’

Vice President JD Vance forcefully rebuked the Supreme Court on Friday after it ruled 6-3 that President Donald J. Trump exceeded his authority in imposing sweeping global tariffs under emergency powers, calling the decision “lawlessness” and warning it undermines America’s economic defenses.

The Court struck down the administration’s tariffs, concluding that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant the president broad authority to impose trade penalties absent explicit congressional authorization. The decision represents a legal setback for one of the defining pillars of President Trump’s second-term economic agenda.

Vance: “Lawlessness from the Court”

In a post on X, Vance criticized the majority’s reasoning in blunt terms.

He wrote that the Court “decided that Congress, despite giving the president the ability to ‘regulate imports,’ didn’t actually mean it,” and described the ruling as “lawlessness from the Court, plain and simple.”

“And its only effect will be to make it harder for the president to protect American industries and supply chain resiliency.”

Vance emphasized that the administration is far from out of options.

“President Trump has a wide range of other tariff powers, and he will use them to defend American workers and advance this administration’s trade priorities.”

Trump Defends His Record

President Trump himself responded swiftly, criticizing the Court while underscoring what he described as strong economic performance under his leadership.

According to Newsmax, Trump pointed to major stock market benchmarks reached ahead of schedule.

“Our stock market has just recently broken 50,000 on the Dow and simultaneously, and even more amazingly, broken 7,000 on the S&P, two numbers that everybody thought upon our landslide election victory could not be attained,” Trump told reporters Friday. “Think of that.

“Nobody thought it was possible to do it within four years. And we did it in one year,” Trump added.

The president also read from Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s dissent to argue that the ruling does not meaningfully tie the administration’s hands.

“Although I firmly disagree with the court’s holding today, the decision might not substantially constrain a president’s ability to order tariffs going forward,” Trump said, quoting the dissent. “And it doesn’t.”

Legal Debate Far From Settled

Legal scholars note that while the Court rejected the use of IEEPA for blanket tariffs, other statutory pathways remain available.

Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University Law School, said the administration retains significant flexibility.

“The administration has other tools in its toolbox. It can actually impose tariffs under other statutes,” Turley said, adding that there’s plenty of runway for the Trump White House in this area of economic policy.

Administration lawyers had argued in lower courts that IEEPA allows a president to act against “unusual and extraordinary threats” once a national emergency has been declared. President Trump has maintained that deep and “sustained” trade deficits constitute precisely such an emergency — one that jeopardizes national security and long-term economic independence.

The Department of Justice urged the Supreme Court to leave the tariffs in place, warning that stripping the president of authority under IEEPA “would leave our country open to trade retaliation without effective defenses.”

Opponents countered that no president in the 50 years since IEEPA’s passage had used it to impose tariffs. They also argued that longstanding trade deficits — stretching back decades — undercut the claim that the situation qualifies as an “unusual and extraordinary” emergency.

Separation of Powers — or Executive Constraint?

The Court’s majority framed the ruling as an affirmation of Congress’s constitutional authority over tariffs. But critics, including Vice President Vance, argue the decision narrows the executive branch’s ability to respond swiftly in an era of global economic competition and supply chain vulnerability.

With President Trump already signaling alternative legal strategies and reaffirming his commitment to defending American industry, the legal clash may represent not an endpoint — but the beginning of a broader recalibration of how tariff authority is exercised in his second term.