The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Friday that President Donald Trump exceeded his authority when he used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose broad, global tariffs. In a 6-3 decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that nothing in IEEPA’s text authorizes the president to unilaterally impose tariffs, and concluded the tariffs lacked the necessary statutory backing.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh and Samuel Alito dissented. The ruling undercuts a central feature of Trump’s trade policy that many critics warned would raise costs for American consumers and businesses — a prediction supported by analyses and reporting showing higher prices and rising costs for firms. A Democratic congressional estimate cited by opponents found the average U.S. family paid more than $1,700 in tariff-related expenses since the start of Trump’s second term.
While the decision removes the IEEPA legal basis for the tariffs and could pave the way for refunds to some businesses, it does not clearly establish relief for consumers who faced higher grocery and goods prices. The opinion did not set out procedures for refunds, and Justice Kavanaugh noted in dissent that the court left unresolved whether and how consumers who suffered price increases can recover losses. Reporting that the court’s critics cited also suggested midsize companies’ tariff-driven costs tripled in the last year.
Advocates warned consumers seeking compensation would be disappointed. Alex Jacquez of Groundwork Collaborative said the ruling offers little immediate relief for families and warned the economic damage to investment, manufacturing and household budgets will persist; even business refunds, he said, could take months or years and may not translate into lower consumer prices.
Most tariffs from Trump’s second term are affected. The decision particularly disrupts country-specific “reciprocal” tariffs — including steep rates such as 34% for China and a roughly 10% baseline for others — and a 25% tariff applied to some goods from Canada, China and Mexico intended to pressure those countries over fentanyl flows.
Beyond price effects, critics note the tariffs did not reduce the U.S. trade deficit or halt manufacturing job losses; Democrats point to data showing the manufacturing sector lost roughly 108,000 jobs during Trump’s first year back in office. Administration officials had already been exploring alternative legal authorities to maintain similar levies. The White House said Friday it would continue a tariffs regime despite the ruling.
Legal experts say other statutes could still permit presidential tariffs. Lori Wallach of the American Economic Liberties Project highlighted Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows the president to impose tariffs up to 15% for up to 150 days to address serious balance-of-payments problems, with fewer procedural limits.
Members of Congress broadly welcomed the court’s decision but warned it might not end protectionist measures. Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.) called the ruling a positive development but cautioned the administration could seek similar authority again.
The Supreme Court removed IEEPA as the legal foundation for these tariffs, but left unresolved who will recover economic harms already suffered and whether other statutes will be used to revive comparable duties. This article was originally published by Common Dreams and is republished under a Creative Commons license.
