Huge setback: US Supreme Court strikes down Trump’s sweeping tariffs

Washington DC: The US Supreme Court on Friday struck down a series of sweeping tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump, ruling that he exceeded his authority by invoking a law intended for national emergencies, according to NBC News.

In a 6-3 decision, the court held that Trump’s broad use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to levy tariffs on products entering the United States from around the world was not legally justified. The ruling invalidates many of the tariffs introduced under that authority, though it does not affect all trade measures enacted by the administration.

The opinion was authored by Chief Justice John Roberts and was joined by the court’s three liberal justices as well as conservative Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett. Justices Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh and Samuel Alito dissented.

The decision marks a significant legal setback for Trump during his second term, particularly given the court’s 6-3 conservative majority. Since returning to the office in January, the administration has largely fared well before the high court.

Responding from the White House, Trump sharply criticised the ruling, calling it “a disgrace to our nation.” He accused the justices in the majority of being “unpatriotic and disloyal to the Constitution” and suggested they had been influenced by foreign interests.

Despite the setback, Trump said the ruling would not deter his trade agenda. He emphasized that his authority to impose tariffs under other statutes remains intact and announced plans to introduce a new 10 percent global tariff, which he said would represent a reduction for most foreign countries compared to existing duties.

Financial markets reacted positively to the court’s decision, with stocks rising following news of the ruling. Investors appeared to interpret the judgment as reducing uncertainty surrounding US trade policy.

Business owners who had challenged the tariffs in court welcomed the outcome, saying the duties had increased costs and disrupted supply chains. The decision provides relief to companies that had been required to pay the contested tariffs while litigation was ongoing.

The ruling is expected to have significant implications for the scope of presidential powers in trade policy and the use of emergency authorities in economic matters.