The US Supreme Court has delivered a major setback to President Donald Trump by striking down his sweeping global tariffs in a 6-3 decision. The ruling removes a key pillar of Trump’s trade strategy and marks a rare moment when the court has limited his use of executive power.
The decision came after months of legal challenges from businesses, Democratic-led states, and free-market groups. The majority of justices concluded that the president went beyond his legal authority when he used emergency powers to impose wide-ranging import taxes on nearly all trading partners.
At the heart of the case was the US Constitution, which gives Congress — not the president — the power to impose taxes and tariffs. The Trump administration had relied on a 1977 emergency powers law to justify the duties, arguing that America’s trade deficit amounted to a national emergency.
However, the majority of the court disagreed. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the framers of the Constitution did not give any part of the taxing power to the executive branch. According to the ruling, the emergency law cited by the administration had been used many times in the past, but never to impose broad tariffs.
The court said Trump’s interpretation stretched the statute far beyond what Congress intended. In simple terms, the justices believed the president tried to use a law for a purpose it was never meant to serve.
Three conservative justices — Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh — disagreed with the majority. In his dissent, Kavanaugh said the tariffs might or might not be good policy but argued they were legally allowed under past practice and legal interpretation.
Importantly, the court did not decide whether companies that already paid billions in tariffs will get refunds. That question may lead to further legal battles in the coming months.
ALSO READ: US military on standby for possible Iran strike, Trump yet to take final decision
President Trump responded with strong criticism shortly after the ruling. He called the decision “deeply disappointing” and said he was ashamed of the justices who voted against his policy.
Trump accused the majority of being weak and claimed the ruling would hurt the US economy. He praised the three dissenting justices, calling their opinions strong and wise. The president also argued that foreign countries that had long benefited from trade imbalances would celebrate the decision.
In his remarks, Trump suggested the court had been influenced by political pressure and foreign interests — claims for which he provided no evidence. He also insisted that his administration would explore other legal ways to impose tariffs and protect American industries.
Despite the setback, the ruling does not completely block Trump from using tariffs in the future. The court made clear that other trade laws remain available to the president, although those routes are generally slower and more limited.
Financial markets reacted with surprising calm. Major US indexes showed modest gains after the decision. The S&P 500 rose slightly, the Dow Jones Industrial Average was nearly flat, and the Nasdaq Composite posted a small increase.
Investors appeared more focused on broader economic signals. Data showed the US economy grew at a slower pace of 1.4 percent in the fourth quarter of 2025, down sharply from the strong growth seen earlier in the year. At the same time, inflation remained somewhat elevated, creating a difficult situation for the Federal Reserve.
Bond yields moved only slightly following the ruling, suggesting traders do not expect immediate economic disruption. Analysts say markets had already been preparing for the possibility that the tariffs could be struck down.
The case is significant because it tests the limits of presidential power in trade policy. Trump had framed the tariffs as essential to reducing trade deficits and protecting American manufacturing. But critics argued the measures raised costs for US businesses and consumers.
Opposition to the tariffs came from an unusual coalition. Democratic states challenged the policy in court, but they were joined by libertarian groups and pro-business organizations that often support Republican economic positions. Public opinion polls have also shown mixed support for broad tariffs, especially at a time when voters are worried about the cost of living.
Economically, the stakes are large. Government estimates suggest tariffs could affect trillions of dollars in trade over the next decade. By December, the Treasury had already collected more than $100 billion in tariff revenue under the policy.
Companies in sectors such as toys, plumbing supplies, and apparel were among those that filed lawsuits. Many argued the tariffs increased their costs and disrupted supply chains.
The ruling is also notable because it comes after Trump appointed three of the current justices to the Supreme Court during his presidency. Even so, the court’s majority concluded that the administration had crossed a legal boundary.
Looking ahead, the administration is expected to examine alternative legal tools to continue pressuring trading partners. However, experts say any new approach will likely face close scrutiny from courts and Congress.
For now, the Supreme Court’s decision stands as a major check on unilateral tariff action by the executive branch. It reinforces the long-standing constitutional principle that Congress — not the president — holds the primary power over taxation and trade duties.
Copyright © © 2022 Copyright. All Rights Reserved with Arth Parkash