The Supreme Court on Friday struck down a huge chunk of President Donald Trump’s far-reaching tariff agenda, in a major rebuke of the president’s key economic policy.
The law that undergirds those import duties “does not authorize the President to impose tariffs,” the majority ruled six to three in a decision Trump had been awaiting.
The ruling is a massive loss for Trump, who has made tariffs — and his asserted power to impose them on any country at any time, without congressional input — a central feature of his administration’s economic and foreign policies.
Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the opinion of the court. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.
The ruling was silent on whether tariffs that have been paid under the higher rates will need to be refunded.
Since retaking the White House, Trump has rapidly reshaped America’s longstanding trade relationships by imposing a staggering array of import duties that have touched nearly every country on earth.
Many of those tariffs were invoked using a novel reading of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA. They include Trump’s near-global “reciprocal” tariffs, and separate duties related to the alleged trafficking of deadly drugs into the U.S.
IEEPA does not explicitly mention tariffs, and the court ruling Friday said it the law does not grant the president authority to impose tariffs. Instead, it allows the president to “regulate … importation” of foreign property transactions after declaring a national emergency in order to deal with certain “unusual and extraordinary” threats.
The Trump administration has argued that language empowers the president to impose tariffs on foreign goods.
Critics charged that the law does not permit the president to unilaterally impose levies of any size on any country at any time. A federal trade court and a federal appeals court both found Trump’s IEEPA tariffs illegal before the Supreme Court took up the case.
The majority of U.S. tariff revenue generated last year came from the IEEPA duties.
Trump last April unveiled his sweeping reciprocal tariff plans at a much-ballyhooed White House event marking what he had dubbed America’s “Liberation Day.”
That announcement stoked a sudden market panic, and the tariffs were quickly put on pause. They have since been repeatedly tweaked, delayed and reimposed, adding confusion and further complexity to the administration’s tangled web of trade policies.
Other IEEPA-based tariffs include a set aimed at Mexico, Canada and China related to allegations that those countries have allowed the deadly drug fentanyl to flow into the U.S.
Trump, a fierce critic of America’s recent history of making free-trade deals, has repeatedly praised tariffs as both a bountiful source of federal revenue and a key tool in negotiations with foreign partners and adversaries alike.
He has claimed that foreign countries bear the cost of his tariffs, and he has downplayed concerns that the taxes will lead to higher prices for Americans. His administration, however, has admitted that the duties are paid by U.S. importers.
Trump has claimed the tariff revenue has been so large that the duties may be able to replace the income tax. He has also floated the idea of sending Americans $2,000 tariff dividend checks.
“We have taken in, and will soon be receiving, more than 600 Billion Dollars in Tariffs,” he wrote in a recent Truth Social post.
Other estimates are significantly lower: The Bipartisan Policy Center, for instance, tallied U.S. gross tariff revenue in 2025 at about $289 billion. U.S. Customs and Border Protection said it had collected roughly $200 billion between Jan. 20 and Dec. 15.
For the IEEPA-specific tariffs, the administration said it has collected about $129 billion in revenue as of Dec. 10.
Ahead of the ruling, Trump and his administration talked up the consequences of the high court striking down the tariffs.
“If the Supreme Court rules against the United States of America on this National Security bonanza, WE’RE SCREWED!” Trump wrote on Jan. 12.
U.S. officials, including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, have meanwhile stated that they believed the supreme court would not undo the president’s “signature” economic policy.
This is breaking news. Please check back for updates.
