The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Friday that President Donald Trump violated federal law when he unilaterally imposed sweeping emergency tariffs on imports. In a 6–3 decision, the conservative majority found that the authority Trump invoked under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant a president the power to impose tariffs on such a large scale. However, the Court did not provide clear guidance on the $134 billion already collected from importers while the tariffs were in effect.
The ruling is a major blow to Trump’s trade policy, which had relied heavily on tariffs as leverage against partner countries including China, Mexico, Canada, India, and Brazil. Duties had been raised as high as 50% on key partners and up to 145% on Chinese goods in 2025, affecting agricultural products and influencing global markets and farm exporters.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the president failed to demonstrate clear congressional support for his actions and that IEEPA powers “do not allow unilateral tariff imposition.” The Court rejected the administration’s argument that the president could independently regulate trade, emphasizing strict constitutional limits on executive authority.
The Trump administration had argued the tariffs were necessary to protect the national economy and to strengthen negotiating leverage with other countries. The Court noted that while other presidential tariff authorities do exist, they are limited by timeframes or specific sectors, complicating Trump’s strategy of rapidly raising and lowering duties.
The decision also creates uncertainty over potential refunds to importers. In a concurring opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh warned that reimbursing the $134 billion could be “complex and chaotic,” and the issue will likely need to be resolved in lower U.S. courts.
Analysts say the ruling has major implications for the U.S. economy and global agricultural markets. It also limits a president’s ability to take unilateral economic actions — including tariffs on agricultural goods — and underscores the need for clear legislative backing for major trade initiatives in the future.
