Supreme Court strikes down Trump’s emergency tariff powers in landmark 6-3 ruling

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Friday that President Trump cannot use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs, striking down the legal foundation for the bulk of his trade agenda in a decision that Chief Justice John Roberts said implicates Congress’s core constitutional taxing authority.

The ruling in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump eliminates tariffs that had generated over $160 billion in revenue and were projected to bring in $1.4 trillion over the next decade, according to the Tax Foundation. Trump responded within 24 hours by imposing replacement tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, a statute that has never previously been invoked and is capped at 15% for 150 days.

Marshall Dawson, guest hosting The Kim Monson Show on February 23, called the decision constitutionally significant while noting its practical limits. “I think it is very important that the Supreme Court ensures that we are getting things right and proper,” Dawson said on the broadcast. “This is not the only avenue that the president has for setting tariffs.”

The court’s reasoning

Roberts, writing for a majority that included Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Barrett, and Jackson, held that IEEPA’s text does not support the power the president claimed.

“Based on two words separated by 16 others in IEEPA, ‘regulate’ and ‘importation,’ the President asserts the independent power to impose tariffs on imports from any country, of any product, at any rate, for any amount of time. Those words cannot bear such weight,” Roberts wrote.

The chief justice emphasized that IEEPA “contains no reference to tariffs or duties” and that “until now no President has read IEEPA to confer such power.” The government conceded that “the president has no inherent peacetime power to impose tariffs,” according to legal analysis from Perkins Coie.

Roberts grounded the decision in the Constitution’s assignment of taxing power to Congress under Article I, Section 8. In a portion of the opinion joined only by Justices Gorsuch and Barrett, Roberts applied the major questions doctrine, writing that delegating “the core congressional power of the purse” requires clear statutory language, especially when, as the government’s own brief argued, whether “we are a rich nation” or a “poor” one hangs in the balance.

Justice Kavanaugh dissented in a 63-page opinion joined by Justices Thomas and Alito. “The tariffs have generated vigorous policy debates” that “are not for the Federal Judiciary to resolve,” Kavanaugh wrote. Thomas filed a separate 18-page dissent emphasizing historical practice.

What the ruling eliminates

The decision voids all tariffs imposed under IEEPA authority. These include tariffs on Canada (up to 35%), Mexico (up to 25%), and China (up to 20%) issued in early 2025, the “Liberation Day” tariffs of April 2, 2025, targeting most trading partners at rates of 10% to 50%, and subsequent country-specific tariffs on Brazil and India, according to Perkins Coie.

The Tax Foundation estimated that the ruling “shields US taxpayers from that major tax increase and erases nearly three-fourths of the new tax revenue” the administration had projected. Importers have already paid an estimated $130 billion to $200 billion in IEEPA duties, according to Perkins Coie. The court did not address whether those duties must be refunded, leaving the question to lower courts. Kavanaugh warned the refund process is likely to be a “mess.”

Trump’s immediate pivot

Within 24 hours of the ruling, Trump signed three executive instruments: terminating IEEPA tariff collection, imposing a new tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, and maintaining the suspension of duty-free de minimis treatment, according to Perkins Coie.

Section 122 has never been used before. Designed to address balance-of-payments deficits, it carries statutory limits: a maximum rate of 15% and a maximum duration of 150 days, after which Congress must vote to continue the tariffs. Trump initially set the rate at 10% and shortly thereafter raised it to 15%. The tariffs took effect February 24.

U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer announced new Section 301 investigations against “most major trading partners” on an “accelerated timeframe,” signaling the administration’s intent to rebuild its tariff regime through alternative legal channels.

What remains in place

The ruling affects only tariffs imposed under IEEPA. Several other tariff authorities remain fully operational.

Section 232 tariffs on steel, aluminum, copper, automobiles, auto parts, trucks, truck parts, and semiconductors continue in effect. The Tax Foundation projects these tariffs will generate $635 billion over the next decade and cost American households an average of $400 in 2026.

Section 301 tariffs on China from the first Trump administration also remain. With new Section 301 investigations announced, the administration has a pathway to reimpose country-specific tariffs, though the process requires formal USTR investigations rather than unilateral presidential action.

As Cathy Russell, co-hosting The Kim Monson Show alongside Dawson, observed, the decision narrows presidential trade authority without eliminating it.