Supreme Court Hands Trump Major Defeat With a Six to Three Decision Striking Down His Global Tariffs

The Supreme Court delivered a major setback to President Trump’s economic policy on Friday, ruling the rationale for levying his tariffs was not justified.A group of small businesses sued the president, claiming his use of reciprocal tariffs was an overstep of his powers. The United States Court of International Trade and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit both previously ruled against the administration.With a 6-3 decision, the high court upheld the ruling. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion.“The president asserts the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote. “In light of the breadth, history, and constitutional context of that asserted authority, he must identify clear congressional authorization to exercise it.”Mr. Trump was in a meeting with several governors when the decision was released. He called it “a disgrace,” the Associated Press reported, citing an unnamed source.Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito dissented. “The tariffs at issue here may or may not be wise policy. But as a matter of text, history, and precedent, they are clearly lawful,” Justice Kavanaugh wrote in a lengthy response.Mr. Trump levied the worldwide reciprocal tariffs as part of his “Liberation Day” executive order, relying on the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Opponents said the import duties were a use of the law that lawmakers never intended and one that had never been claimed by the president.The decision struck down those tariffs and others Mr. Trump imposed on Brazil, Canada, China, India, and Mexico. It does not cover other tariffs on steel and aluminum, cars, copper, and lumber that Mr. Trump used other statutes to enact.In arguments before the Nine, the Trump administrator’s solicitor general, D. John Sauer, tried to paint the tariffs as regulatory rather than revenue-based. Mr. Sauer argued that Mr. Trump was using his authority to regulate foreign powers and claimed that the revenue they have generated was an ancillary effect of the policy.The majority was not convinced by that argument.“Today’s decision declaring IEEPA tariffs unlawful is a powerful reaffirmation of the Rule of Law and Constitutional Separation of Powers that our country is built upon,” the chief executive officer of Learning Resources, Rick Woldenberg, said, the suit, said in an emailed statement to The New York Sun. “As family-owned, mission-driven education companies, we brought this lawsuit to protect our 500+ employees and the schools and families who rely on us.”The Taxpayers Protection Alliance cheered the ruling. “This is HUGE,” the group’s president, David Williams, said in an emailed statement. “The Supreme Court rightfully rules that the President does not have the unilateral power to remake global trade on a whim. A major victory for protecting American consumers and businesses.”The government has collected billions in tariffs and the decision said nothing about whether and how the levies should be returned to companies that paid them.“That process is likely to be a ‘mess,’” Justice Kavanaugh wrote in his dissent.The Trump administration had argued the country would suffer devastating economic consequences if the president’s tariffs were overturned.Solicitor General D. John Sauer claimed millions of jobs will be eliminated and the future of Social Security and Medicare will be threatened if money already collected through tariffs has to be refunded.Some companies are already seeking refunds. Warehouse club Costco filed a preemptive lawsuit in December seeking refunds if the tariffs were overturned.The Liberty Justice Center brought the suit to the courts on behalf of several small businesses. “We intend to help small businesses navigate the refund process, including developing a centralized database, information portal, and referral network to connect affected companies with qualified attorneys to pursue potential refund claims,” the director of litigation for the group said in a release.Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has previously said there would be contingency plans in place to continue using tariffs if the administration lost its case.“Anyone hoping this spells the end of the administration’s tariff spree should think twice,” the CATO Institute’s Clark Packard said in a blog post. “Even without IEEPA, the president retains ample statutory authority to quickly recreate much of the current trade policy chaos.”The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Supreme Court Hands Trump Major Defeat With a Six to Three Decision Striking Down His Global Tariffs

More from the New York Sun

Could the Supreme Court’s Tariff Decision Be Applied to the Fed?

American Skier Hunter Hess Says Trump Post Led to ‘Two Hardest Weeks’ of His Life

A Haunting Study of Five Remarkable Black Men Who Soared Despite Societal Challenges

More from the New York Sun

Could the Supreme Court’s Tariff Decision Be Applied to the Fed?

American Skier Hunter Hess Says Trump Post Led to ‘Two Hardest Weeks’ of His Life

A Haunting Study of Five Remarkable Black Men Who Soared Despite Societal Challenges

Revisiting the Australian Film Debut of a Marvel Director

Veterans Sue To Stop Trump’s 250-Foot Triumphal Arch, Saying It Would ‘Dishonor’ Their Military Service

MAHA Movement Stunned by Trump Order Shielding Pesticide Makers From Lawsuits

‘How To Make a Killing’ is Dead on Arrival

North Korea’s Kim Jong Un, at Party Congress in Pyongyang, Focuses on Economy, Skips Nukes and Missiles