The US Supreme Court on Friday ruled that President Donald Trump exceeded his authority when he invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping global tariffs, finding that the statute “nothing” in its text “enables the president to unilaterally impose tariffs.” In a 6-3 decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, Roberts wrote that “without statutory authority, the president’s tariffs cannot stand.” Justices Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and Samuel Alito dissented.
The ruling undercuts the tariff regime that defined much of Trump’s economic policy and which critics warned would raise costs for US consumers and businesses — a prediction borne out in practice. A Democratic congressional analysis estimated the average US family paid more than $1,700 in tariff-related costs since the start of Trump’s second term.
While the decision may open the door to tariff refunds for businesses, it does not clearly provide relief for consumers who faced higher prices for groceries and other goods. The court’s opinion did not directly address refund procedures; as Associate Justice Kavanaugh emphasized in dissent, the ruling leaves unresolved whether and how consumers hit by price increases can recover losses. Midsize companies saw tariff-driven costs triple last year, according to reporting cited by the court’s critics.
“Any consumer looking for relief from tariff-driven price hikes did not find it at the Supreme Court today,” said Alex Jacquez, chief of policy and advocacy at Groundwork Collaborative. He warned the economic damage to investment, manufacturing, and family budgets will linger and noted that refunds for businesses could take months or years to process, with little guarantee savings will be passed on to consumers.
Most tariffs imposed during Trump’s second term are affected by the decision. The court’s ruling particularly upends two categories: country-specific or “reciprocal” tariffs — including rates such as 34% for China and a 10% baseline for other countries — and a 25% tariff applied to some goods from Canada, China, and Mexico intended to pressure those countries over fentanyl flows.
Beyond price effects, Trump’s tariffs failed to reduce the US trade deficit or halt manufacturing job losses; new data cited by Democrats shows the manufacturing sector lost an estimated 108,000 jobs during Trump’s first year back in office.
Fearing an adverse ruling, administration officials had been exploring alternatives to IEEPA, prompting concern that the president could pursue similar tariffs under different legal authority. The White House announced Friday that it would continue with a tariffs regime despite the ruling.
Legal and trade experts say other statutes could still empower broad presidential tariffs. Lori Wallach, director of Rethink Trade at the American Economic Liberties Project, pointed to Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which authorizes a president to impose tariffs up to 15% for up to 150 days related to “large and serious” balance of payments problems and does not require investigations or many procedural limits.
Members of Congress welcomed the court’s decision but warned it may not end the policy. Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), ranking member of the House Budget Committee, said the ruling is welcome but cautioned that Trump is likely to attempt similar measures again.
The Supreme Court’s decision removes the IEEPA-based legal basis for the tariffs but leaves unresolved who will be able to recover the economic harms already inflicted and whether alternative statutes will be used to reinstate similar levies. This article originally published by Common Dreams is republished under a Creative Commons license.
