WASHINGTON — In a decisive 6–3 ruling, the United States Supreme Court struck down tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump under emergency powers, concluding that the White House overstepped its constitutional authority by unilaterally levying taxes that the Constitution squarely assigns to Congress.
The Court ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize a president to impose tariffs, effectively dismantling a core pillar of Trump’s trade agenda and reinforcing long-standing limits on executive power.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, made clear that the issue was not policy preference but constitutional structure. The power to impose tariffs, the Court held, belongs to Congress and Congress alone. The opinion was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, forming a broad ideological coalition that underscored the seriousness of the violation.
Emergency Powers Used as a Workaround
The tariffs at issue were announced on what the Trump administration branded “Liberation Day” on April 2, along with earlier tariffs imposed in February targeting imports from Canada, China, and Mexico. The administration justified the measures by invoking emergency powers, sidestepping Congress entirely.
Lower federal courts had already rejected that legal theory. The Supreme Court’s ruling now cements those decisions, confirming that no declared emergency allows a president to rewrite the Constitution’s allocation of taxing authority.
Ahead of the ruling, Trump publicly attempted to pressure the Court, warning on social media that the country would be “screwed” if the justices ruled against him. The warning failed. The Court ruled anyway.
Billions Collected, Legality Rejected
Trump repeatedly claimed the tariffs were generating billions of dollars for the U.S. economy and suggested the revenue could be used to reduce the national debt or even fund direct payments to Americans. Those proposals never materialized.
Critics, economists, and consumer advocates argued the tariffs functioned as a hidden tax on Americans, a claim supported by numerous companies that said higher import costs forced price increases on consumers.
Studies showed U.S. households bore the overwhelming share of the burden, with estimates indicating Americans absorbed roughly 96 percent of the tariff costs.
According to economists at the Penn-Wharton Budget Model, more than $175 billion in tariff collections could now be at risk if the tariffs are fully unwound, raising serious questions about refunds, liability, and accountability.
Legal and Financial Fallout Ahead
The Court did not address whether businesses or consumers will be refunded for tariffs already paid. That omission leaves a looming legal battle in its wake.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined in dissent by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, warned that unraveling the tariffs could be a “mess,” though the majority made clear that administrative inconvenience does not justify constitutional violations.
Senator Elizabeth Warren cautioned that if refunds are issued, large corporations—not consumers—are most likely to benefit.
“The Court has struck down these destructive tariffs, but there is no legal mechanism for consumers and many small businesses to recoup the money they have already paid,” Warren said. “Instead, giant corporations with their armies of lawyers and lobbyists can sue for tariff refunds, then just pocket the money for themselves.”
A Constitutional Line Reasserted
At its core, the ruling serves as a stark reminder that emergency powers are not a blank check and that presidents cannot unilaterally impose taxes under the guise of national urgency.
Whether the tariffs were good or bad policy was not the question before the Court. The question was authority. On that point, the Supreme Court’s answer was unequivocal: the president did not have it.
Trump is scheduled to respond publicly to the ruling at a press briefing later today. The legal reality, however, is already settled. The tariffs are blocked, the emergency justification rejected, and the constitutional boundary firmly reasserted.
No comments:
Post a Comment