US Supreme Court strikes down Trump's country-specific tariffs

The US Supreme Court on Feb. 20 struck down President Donald Trump's country-specific tariffs, determining he exceeded presidential authority when imposing duties on products from nearly all US trading partners.

Country-specific tariffs ranging from 10% to 50% will now be removed on all imports to the US. The decision does not affect the 50% sectoral tariffs for steel, aluminum and copper, which fall under a different law and were not considered as part of the case.

The decision marks one of the high court's rare efforts to rein in the Trump administration, asserting the president has less control over trade policy.

In the 6-3 decision, justices said a president cannot rely on emergency powers to impose tariffs.

Justices determined the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA), which Trump invoked to implement the global tariffs as well as higher rates on Chinese-specific goods, does not authorize a president to impose such executive action.

"The government thus concedes that the president enjoys no inherent authority to impose tariffs during peacetime," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his majority opinion. "It instead relies exclusively on IEEPA to defend the challenged tariffs. It reads the words 'regulate' and 'importation' to effect a sweeping delegation of Congress's power to set tariff policy — authorizing the president to impose tariffs of unlimited amount and duration, on any product from any country."

Justices appeared skeptical when hearing oral arguments on Nov. 5, 2025, as to whether Trump acted within his powers and whether duties could be imposed without congressional approval. The Supreme Court took up the Trump administration's appeal of a lower court ruling that found Trump had exceeded his authority to implement tariffs, which were challenged by several businesses and 12 states.

"Against that backdrop of clear and limited delegations, the government reads IEEPA to give the president power to unilaterally impose unbounded tariffs and change them at will. That view would represent a transformative expansion of the president's authority over tariff policy," Roberts wrote.

Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh dissented, writing that the effects of the court's decision deeming the tariffs unconstitutional "could be substantial."

"The tariffs at issue here may or may not be wise policy. But as a matter of text, history, and precedent, they are clearly lawful," Kavanaugh wrote in his dissent.

Kavanaugh also raised concerns about the decision's effects on current trade deals. He said the IEEPA tariffs have facilitated deals with countries such as China, the UK and Japan.

"The court's decision could generate uncertainty regarding various trade agreements. That process, too, could be difficult," he wrote.

The Supreme Court's decision comes one week after the House of Representatives failed to reinstate a ban on resolutions that would overturn Trump's tariffs, opening the doors for Congress to challenge Trump's trade policy. On Feb. 12, several House Republicans crossed the aisle to support a Democrat-led resolution overturning Trump's tariffs on Canada.

Refund process unclear

The justices did not address the refund process for collected tariffs in their decision.

"The United States may be required to refund billions of dollars to importers who paid the IEEPA tariffs, even though some importers may have already passed on costs to consumers or others," Kavanaugh wrote in his dissent.

Trump indicated in a Jan. 12 Truth Social post that this could be "trillions of dollars," though Trump has often exaggerated numbers in his posts.

"It would be a complete mess, and almost impossible for our country to pay," Trump wrote. "Anybody who says that it can be quickly and easily done would be making a false, inaccurate or totally misunderstood answer to this very large and complex question."

During the Supreme Court oral arguments, lawyers representing small businesses said the reimbursement process would be a "very complicated thing."