The US Supreme Court declares Trump's tariffs illegal

WashingtonThe US Supreme Court has ruled illegal the tariffs imposed by Donald Trump under emergency economic powers last year. After weeks of delaying the decision, the high court ruled this Friday with a 6-3 vote. The three justices who dissented the sentence The justices are conservatives Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., and Brett M. Kavanaugh. Beyond being a setback for one of the fundamental pillars of Trump's policies, the ruling also unleashes a global economic earthquake. The court issued its decision after the US president appealed the ruling of the Washington appeals court, which determined that most of the tariffs were illegal, arguing that the Republican had abused his emergency powers to impose them. Despite the impact of the blow for Trump, the ruling does not guarantee an end to the tariff war. The president has made the trade war his main gamble, and it will be difficult for him to abandon it so easily. The administration can still seek other legal mechanisms and powers to maintain all the tariffs that have been struck down. If the new White House team has demonstrated anything, it is its imagination when it comes to rescuing authorities and reinterpreting them to its advantage. In the 170-page majority opinion, written by conservative Justice John Roberts, the Court argues that the "extraordinary power to impose unilateral and indefinite tariffs" is an authority the president cannot exercise without congressional authorization. "Given the breadth, history, and constitutional context of the authority he is claiming, he must have clear authorization from Congress to exercise it," he writes, adding that emergency powers "fall short" of justifying the reciprocal tariffs. However, the decision does not address what will happen to the more than $130 billion the government has already collected through the tariffs. The appeals court ruling affects both the so-called reciprocal tariffs—which include the entire range of taxes imposed on the EU and other countries—and those imposed on Mexico, Canada, and China. All of them were approved in accordance with the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a law that grants the president the authority to address "unusual and extraordinary threats" during national emergencies. The justices concluded that the IEEPA "does not authorize tariffs imposed through executive orders."

The tariffs, which Trump defends as the magic bullet for solving the US fiscal deficit, have also served as a tool to pressure other countries into making economic concessions. On the contrary, they have weakened the dollar and increased volatility in financial markets. The court's decision does not affect tariffs issued under other legal authority, such as those the government imposed on steel and aluminum imports.

The European Union has already reacted to the case. The European Commission's trade spokesperson, Olof Gill, stated that the EU executive "is already analyzing it carefully." "We are in contact with the US administration as we seek clarity on the steps it intends to take in response to the ruling," he added in a statement. Gill also took the opportunity to reiterate that the EU "advocates for low tariffs and will continue working to reduce them."

In Washington, Democrats have also celebrated the decision. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer stated that it is a "victory" for Americans' wallets. He noted that the ruling coincides with the publication of macroeconomic data by the Department of Commercewhich show how the growth of the US economy cooled in the last quarter of 2025. According to the report, GDP grew at an annual rate of 1.4% in the fourth quarter, well below the 4.4% recorded between July and September, and the 3.8% of the second quarter of last year.

Beyond the expectations generated by the ruling due to its economic impact, the decision was also a test to see to what extent the court continues to maintain a certain impartiality. After the conservative majority had ruled in his favor in other cases, Trump expected the same to happen again with the tariffs. In fact, he already hinted at this when he took the case to the Supreme Court, saying that he trusted in "the help of the justices." The conservative bloc, made up of Justices John G. Roberts, Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel A. Alito, ended up splitting in two on this decision. Roberts, Gorsuch, and Barrett voted alongside liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

The division within the caucus on this ruling, which requires the president to adhere to the Constitution in his actions, offers a glimmer of hope for the case of Fed Governor Lisa Cook, which is also before the Supreme Court. The high court, which has already heard opening arguments in the case, must also rule on whether Trump can fire a Federal Reserve governor based solely on an unproven accusation. The founding charter of the U.S. central bank stipulates that the president only has the authority to do so in cases proven in court. The justices' ruling will be crucial for the future of the Fed's independence.

A law to punish enemies

The IEEPA, which dates back to 1977, had historically been used to sanction adversaries or freeze their assets. Trump was the first president to use it to impose tariffs. In the case of Mexico and Canada, the president sought to justify the tariffs by declaring a border crisis due to immigration and fentanyl trafficking. He did the same with China, in this case solely regarding fentanyl, stating that the Asian giant had not done enough to prevent the drug from reaching the United States. It's important to remember that this law does not explicitly mention tariffs, although it allows the president to take a wide range of actions in response to a crisis. Trump's Justice Department has argued that the law permits the application of tariffs within the emergency provisions that authorize the president to "regulate" imports or block them entirely. The Supreme Court's decision stems from two cases that had reached the appeals court: one brought by five small American businesses and another by twelve Democratic-led states, both arguing that the IEEPA does not authorize the tariffs. The Constitution grants Congress, not the president, the authority to set taxes and tariffs, and any delegation of this authority must be explicit and limited, according to the lawsuits. The U.S. Court of International Trade, based in New York, ruled against the tariff policies on May 28 of last year, stating that Trump had exceeded his authority in the case concerning the challenged tariffs. The three-judge panel included one judge appointed by the president himself during his first term. Another Washington court also ruled that the IEEPA does not authorize Trump to approve the tariffs, and the administration has appealed this decision as well. At least eight lawsuits have challenged Trump's tariff policies, including one filed by the state of California.