The US Supreme Court declares Trump's tariffs illegal

WashingtonThe U.S. 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 on Friday with a 6-3 vote. The three dissenting justices were conservatives Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., and Brett M. Kavanaugh. Beyond being a setback for one of the cornerstones of Trump's policies, the ruling also triggers a global economic earthquake. The court issued its decision after the U.S. president appealed the ruling of the Washington appeals court, which had determined that most of the tariffs were illegal, arguing that the Republican had abused his emergency powers to impose them. In the 170-page majority opinion, written by conservative Justice John Roberts, the Court held 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 wrote. However, the decision does not address what will happen to the more than $130 billion the government has already collected through the tariffs. Beyond the expectations generated by the ruling due to its economic impact, the decision was also a test of the court's continued impartiality. After the conservative majority had ruled in his favor in other cases, Trump expected the same outcome to occur with the tariffs. In fact, he already hinted at this when he took the case to the Supreme Court, saying he trusted in "the justices' help." 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 the liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

The appeals court ruling affects both the so-called reciprocal tariffs—which include the entire range of taxes in the EU and other countries—and those imposed on Mexico, Canada, and China. All of them were approved under the International Emergencies Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a law that grants the president the power to address "unusual and extraordinary threats" during national emergencies. The judges conclude that the IEEPA "does not authorize tariffs imposed through executive orders."

Tariffs, which Trump defends as the magic bullet to solve 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 the volatility of 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.

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.