Supreme Court blocks Trump tariffs in major test of executive branch powers

The Supreme Court on Friday blocked President Donald Trump’s use of an emergency law to unilaterally impose sweeping tariffs on most U.S. trading partners, delivering a blow to the president in a case centered on one of his signature economic policies — one he characterized as "life or death" for the U.S. economy.

In a 6-3 decision, the justices invalidated Trump's tariffs. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.

"The Framers gave that power to ‘Congress alone’—notwithstanding the obvious foreign affairs implications of tariffs," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority. "And whatever may be said of other powers that implicate foreign affairs, we would not expect Congress to relinquish its tariff power through vague language, or without careful limits."

Roberts noted that Trump used "two words" that were "separated by 16 others" in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), "regulate" and "importation," to justify that he had 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 Supreme Court heard oral arguments in November in the case, which centered on Trump’s use of the IEEPA to enact his "Liberation Day" tariffs on most countries, including a 10% global tariff and a set of higher, so-called "reciprocal" tariffs on certain nations.

BATTLEGROND STATES SHOULDER BURDEN OF TRUMP'S TARIFFS AS MIDTERM MESSAGING RAMPS UP

In April, Trump declared the U.S. trade deficit a "national emergency," and lawyers for the administration have cited that declaration as the legal basis for invoking IEEPA, which allows the president to respond to "unusual and extraordinary threats" when a national emergency has been declared.

The high court agreed to take up the case last fall after lower courts, including the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, blocked Trump’s attempt to use IEEPA to enact import duties.

Lower courts pressed the Justice Department to explain why Trump invoked IEEPA when other, more narrowly tailored statutes enacted by Congress more specifically address tariffs — including laws that cap tariffs at certain levels or set timeframes subject to congressional review.

The law authorizes the president to "regulate … importation" during a declared national emergency, but it does not mention the word "tariffs" — an omission that was at the heart of the hours-long arguments before the high court in November. The absence of the word was a key factor in the majority's decision.

During oral arguments, justices pressed Solicitor General John Sauer, who argued on behalf of the government, on whether IEEPA applies to tariffs or taxation powers and what guardrails — if any — would limit the executive branch should the high court rule in Trump’s favor.

TRUMP DENOUNCES COURT’S 'POLITICAL' TARIFF DECISION, CALLS ON SUPREME COURT TO ACT QUICKLY

In arguments, Sauer told the justices that IEEPA allows a president to "regulate" "importation" of goods, which he said was the practical equivalent of a tariff.

But justices, including Trump’s conservative appointees, appeared skeptical, pressing Sauer on whether there has "ever been another instance in which a statute has used that language to confer the power" Trump seeks.

Other conservative justices questioned whether an "economic equivalent" to tariffs — such as sanctions, embargoes, licenses and quotas — could be used by the president under the law.

Lawyers for the Trump administration have argued in lower courts that the IEEPA allows a president to act in response to "unusual and extraordinary threats" and in cases where a national emergency has been declared.

TRUMP TARIFF PLAN FACES UNCERTAIN FUTURE AS COURT BATTLES INTENSIFY

Trump has claimed that deep and "sustained" trade deficits amount to a national emergency that is sufficient to trigger his executive powers under the emergency law.

The Justice Department urged the Supreme Court to allow the tariffs to remain in place, warning that denying Trump the tariff authority under IEEPA "would expose our nation to trade retaliation without effective defenses."

Plaintiffs countered that in the 50 years since its passage, the law has never been used by a president to impose tariffs. They also argued that, by the administration’s own admission, the trade deficit cited by Trump has persisted for nearly 50 years — a fact they said undermines his claim that there is an "unusual and extraordinary" trade emergency.

They argued that authorizing Trump’s use of IEEPA to continue his universal tariffs would drastically expand executive power at the expense of the other branches of government.

Judges on a three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of International Trade voted unanimously earlier this year to block Trump’s tariffs from taking effect, ruling that as commander in chief, Trump does not have "unbounded authority" to impose tariffs under the emergency law. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit also rejected the administration’s use of IEEPA.