[ad_1]
\n<\/p>\n
WASHINGTON \u2014 The Supreme Court struck down President Donald Trump\u2019s far-reaching global tariffs on Friday, handing him a significant loss on an issue crucial to his economic agenda.<\/p>\n
The 6-3 decision centers on tariffs imposed under an emergency powers law, including the sweeping \u201creciprocal\u201d tariffs he levied on nearly every other country.<\/p>\n
It\u2019s the first major piece of Trump\u2019s broad agenda to come squarely before the nation\u2019s highest court, which he helped shape with the appointments of three conservative jurists in his first term.<\/p>\n
The majority found that the Constitution \u201cvery clearly\u201d gives Congress the power to impose taxes, which include tariffs.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe Framers did not vest any part of the taxing power in the Executive Branch,\u201d Chief Justice John Roberts wrote.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe tariffs at issue here may or may not be wise policy. But as a matter of text, history, and precedent, they are clearly lawful,\u201d Kavanaugh wrote.<\/p>\n
The majority did not address whether companies could get refunded for the billions they have collectively paid in tariffs. Many companies, including the big-box warehouse chain Costco, have already lined up to demand refunds in lower courts. Kavanaugh noted the process could be complicated.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe Court says nothing today about whether, and if so how, the Government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers. But that process is likely to be a \u2018mess,\u2019 as was acknowledged at oral argument,\u201d he wrote.<\/p>\n
The Treasury had collected more than $133 billion from the import taxes the president has imposed under the emergency powers law as of December, federal data shows.<\/p>\n
The tariffs decision doesn\u2019t stop Trump from imposing duties under other laws.<\/p>\n
While those have more limitations on the speed and severity of Trump\u2019s actions, top administration officials have said they expect to keep the tariff framework in place under other authorities.<\/p>\n
The Supreme Court ruling comes despite a series of short-term wins on the court\u2019s emergency docket that have allowed Trump to push ahead with extraordinary flexes of executive power on issues ranging from high-profile firings to major federal funding cuts.<\/p>\n
The Republican president has been vocal about the case, calling it one of the most important in U.S. history and saying a ruling against him would be an economic body blow to the country.<\/p>\n
But legal opposition crossed the political spectrum, including libertarian and pro-business groups that are typically aligned with the GOP. Polling has found tariffs aren\u2019t broadly popular with the public, amid wider voter concern about affordability.<\/p>\n
The Constitution gives Congress the power to levy tariffs. But the Trump administration argued that a 1977 law allowing the president to regulate importation during emergencies also allows him to set tariffs. Other presidents have used the law dozens of times, often to impose sanctions, but Trump was the first president to invoke it for import taxes.<\/p>\n
Trump set what he called \u201creciprocal\u201d tariffs on most countries in April 2025 to address trade deficits that he declared a national emergency. Those came after he imposed duties on Canada, China and Mexico, ostensibly to address a drug trafficking emergency.<\/p>\n
A series of lawsuits followed, including a case from a dozen largely Democratic-leaning states and others from small businesses selling everything from plumbing supplies to educational toys to women\u2019s cycling apparel.<\/p>\n
The challengers argued the emergency powers law doesn\u2019t even mention tariffs and Trump\u2019s use of it fails several legal tests, including one that doomed then-President Joe Biden\u2019s $500 billion student loan forgiveness program.<\/p>\n
The economic impact of Trump\u2019s tariffs has been estimated at some $3 trillion over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n