The US Supreme Court on Thursday struck down the sweeping global tariff imposed by former President Donald Trump last year, ruling that the duties levied on Nigeria and 184 other countries were illegal.
Trump had, on April 2, 2025, what he called Liberation Day,, introduced a 10 percent baseline tariff on imports from all countries, alongside additional country-specific “reciprocal” tariffs ranging from 11 percent to 50 percent on nations with significant trade deficits with the US.
He relied on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a 1970s-era law allowing a president to regulate imports during national emergencies. Under this scheme, Nigeria faced a 15 percent tariff, while other countries such as China, Cambodia, and Japan were hit with rates of 34 percent, 49 percent, and 24 percent respectively.
The tariff policy escalated into a trade war, with duties later raised as high as 50 percent on India and Brazil, and up to 145 percent on China.
The administration defended the tariffs by arguing that IEEPA’s language implicitly allowed them to impose such duties, even though the words “tariff” or “duty” do not appear in the law.
However, in a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court held that Trump had overstepped his authority by invoking a national emergency statute for these tariffs.
The justices ruled that presidential action on import levies requires Congressional approval, noting that the emergency powers the administration relied on “falls short.”
The court clarified that the decision applies solely to the Liberation Day tariffs, not the individual duties imposed on specific countries or products.
Delivering the ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts described the decision as a check on executive overreach.
“Allowing Trump’s administration to prevail with its tariff agenda would replace the longstanding executive-legislative collaboration over trade policy with unchecked Presidential policymaking,” Roberts said.
He dismissed the administration’s argument that the president had authority to regulate commerce via tariffs, “The president asserts the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope. In light of the breadth, history, and constitutional context of that asserted authority, he must identify clear congressional authorization to exercise it. The President must point to clear congressional authorization to justify his extraordinary assertion of the power to impose tariffs. He cannot,” Roberts wrote.
“When Congress grants the power to impose tariffs, it does so clearly and with careful constraints. It did neither here,” he added.
Roberts further emphasized the court’s limited role in economic policymaking, “We claim no special competence in matters of economics or foreign affairs. We claim only, as we must, the limited role assigned to us by Article III of the Constitution. Fulfilling that role, we hold that IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs.”
The court did not provide guidance on the return of money already collected. As of December 14, $134 billion had been collected through these tariffs, according to U.S.
Customs and Border Protection data. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in his dissent, noted, “That process is likely to be a ‘mess,’” highlighting the lack of clarity on whether and how these funds should be refunded.
This case marked one of the most significant economic rulings in recent years, challenging the legality of Trump’s Liberation Day tariffs and those targeting imports from China, Mexico, and Canada.
At stake were tens of billions in government revenue. Trump and Justice Department officials framed the dispute in stark terms, arguing, “With tariffs, we are a rich nation” and without them, “we are a poor nation.” Meanwhile, small businesses opposing the tariffs warned that Trump’s approach represented a “breathtaking assertion of power” to levy taxes without Congressional oversight.
.
The former president offered counterarguments, asserting that tariffs fall within the realm of foreign affairs, historically left to the executive branch. However, existing statutory authorities provide alternative avenues to impose tariffs, though with constraints such as time limits or requirements for investigations by the Commerce Department.
For instance, one law allows tariffs of up to 15 percent for 150 days, while another permits higher duties for national security reasons but only on specific industries following a Commerce Department review.
All lower courts that examined Trump’s emergency tariffs found them unlawful. In one case, New York-based wine importer V.O.S. Selections successfully argued before the U.S. Court of International Trade that IEEPA did not authorize the emergency duties, a decision later upheld by an appeals court in Washington, D.C.
Separately, Illinois-based toy company Learning Resources won a similar ruling in federal district court. Temporary stays allowed the administration to continue collecting the tariffs while appeals were pending, until yesterday’s Supreme Court judgment finally settled the matter.
