Takeaways from US Supreme Court's blocking of Trump's emergency tariffs in 6-3 ruling

Highlights

• The SC struck down Trump's emergency tariffs in a 6–3 decision
• Chief Justice Roberts said the administration sought an expansive reading of presidential tariff authority without clear backing from Congress
• The ruling may force the White House to seek congressional support for new tariffs ahead of midterms
• Lower courts must now determine whether companies are entitled to refunds for billions collected under the tariffs
• Trump says he will pursue alternative legal tools, including temporary tariffs
• The case deepens debate over the court's use of the major questions doctrine in limiting executive power

The US Supreme Court delivered a major blow to President Donald Trump on Friday, striking down his sweeping emergency tariffs in a 6–3 ruling that could reshape his economic and foreign policy agenda.

The decision, backed by both conservative and liberal justices, marks Trump's first major loss on the merits since returning to the White House. It also signals that the court is willing, at least in some cases, to limit the administration's expansive view of executive authority, reports CNN.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the administration had attempted a "transformative expansion" of presidential power over tariff policy without clear congressional approval. Conservative justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, both appointed by Trump, joined the majority.

Speaking hours after the ruling, Trump criticised the justices and said he would rely on alternative legal authorities to maintain tariffs.

First major setback

Since his return to office, Trump had secured a series of favourable rulings from the conservative-leaning court, including decisions limiting lower courts' ability to block his policies and upholding aspects of his immigration agenda. In 2024, the court also granted him immunity from criminal prosecution for certain official acts during his first term.

Friday's ruling breaks that streak. The majority rejected the administration's reliance on a broad emergency economic law, finding that Congress had not clearly authorised the sweeping global tariffs Trump imposed.

While the decision curbs this specific tariff programme, it does not necessarily signal a broader shift in the court's approach. Several other high-profile cases involving Trump's authority remain pending.

Political fallout before midterms

The ruling could carry political consequences ahead of midterm elections. Trump has already faced pushback from some Republicans over his aggressive tariff strategy. If he turns to Congress to extend or replace the blocked measures, lawmakers may be forced to vote on import duties during an election year.

Recent polling suggests tariffs are unpopular with much of the public, with majorities saying they harm the US economy and that presidential authority over tariffs should be limited.

Trump has indicated he will not retreat from using trade tools but may need to recalibrate his messaging. He is expected to address the issue further in his upcoming State of the Union speech.

Refund battle looms

The case now returns to lower courts, where judges must determine how to handle potentially billions of dollars already collected under the invalidated tariffs.

During oral arguments, Justice Barrett had warned that unwinding the payments could become a procedural "mess." The Supreme Court did not provide guidance on refunds, leaving the issue open.

In dissent, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote that the federal government "may be required to refund billions of dollars" to companies that paid the tariffs, noting that some businesses may have already passed those costs on to consumers.

What happens now that Trump's tariffs have been struck down by the Supreme Court

Numerous companies had filed protective lawsuits to preserve their right to refunds. Protracted litigation is expected, and administrative processes may also be considered to handle repayment claims.

Other tariff options

Despite the setback, Trump retains other statutory tools to impose tariffs. In response to the ruling, he announced plans to enact a 10% global tariff under Section 122 of US trade law. That provision allows temporary tariffs for up to 150 days unless Congress grants an extension.

Kavanaugh, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito in dissent, argued that the president relied on the wrong statute and that other trade laws more clearly grant tariff authority.

However, those alternative mechanisms often require investigations and carry time limits, potentially constraining their scope and speed.

Major questions doctrine debate

The decision also reignited debate over the "major questions doctrine," a legal theory the court has used in recent years to limit executive actions lacking explicit congressional approval.

Roberts and two conservative justices were prepared to apply that doctrine to Trump's tariff policy. But Justice Elena Kagan, joined by the other liberal justices, cautioned against relying on the doctrine in this case, arguing that the tariffs failed even under standard statutory interpretation.

The internal disagreement highlights continuing uncertainty over how the doctrine will shape future cases involving presidential power, particularly in areas touching on economic and foreign policy.