The United States Supreme Court delivered a 6–3 ruling stating that former President Donald Trump overstepped his legal authority when he imposed wide-ranging global tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a law enacted in 1977 primarily to address national security emergencies rather than to regulate routine trade policy. The judgment marked a significant legal setback for Trump’s tariff strategy, concluding that the statute could not be used as a broad tool for economic protectionism or general trade regulation.
However, only days after the court invalidated the tariffs, Trump argued that the decision had, in an unexpected way, strengthened his presidential authority. Writing on his social media platform Truth Social, he claimed that the ruling had inadvertently expanded his powers by confirming his ability to rely on alternative legal mechanisms to impose trade duties. Expressing strong dissatisfaction with the court, he stated that he would deliberately refer to the Supreme Court using lowercase letters as a sign of protest, accusing it of showing a lack of respect for executive authority. Trump further described the judgment as “ridiculous” and internationally divisive, asserting that it ultimately provided him with greater legal leverage than he possessed before the decision.
The Supreme Court’s February 20 ruling specifically held that the administration had misapplied the IEEPA, which was designed to grant emergency powers during crises involving national security threats, foreign adversaries, or extraordinary economic dangers. According to the majority opinion, the law was never intended to serve as a general framework for imposing sweeping tariffs on global imports. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the opinion, which was supported by three liberal justices along with conservative justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, forming the majority that struck down key components of the tariff program.
Despite the legal defeat, Trump insisted that the ruling effectively validated the continued use of other tariff authorities. In his statements, he argued that remaining trade powers could now be exercised more forcefully and with clearer legal backing. He suggested that the court had indirectly approved alternative tariff tools and claimed that licensing mechanisms could be used aggressively against foreign countries. Trump also criticised the justices who formed the majority, accusing them of acting against American interests and describing their decision as disloyal to the Constitution.
In subsequent posts, Trump rejected the idea of returning to Congress to seek legislative approval for new tariffs, arguing that prior authorisations already existed in multiple forms and had effectively been reaffirmed through the court’s decision. His comments signalled an intention to continue pursuing trade restrictions through executive authority rather than through new congressional legislation.
Within hours of the ruling, the White House unveiled a revised tariff framework relying on Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, a separate legal provision that allows the president to impose temporary import duties under specific economic circumstances. Trump announced that he had signed an order introducing a new global tariff rate of 15 percent, scheduled to take effect early Tuesday. Under this statute, such tariffs can remain in force for approximately five months, after which the administration must obtain congressional approval if it wishes to extend them further.
The Supreme Court’s decision invalidated substantial portions of the earlier tariff regime that had applied to imports from numerous countries. As a direct consequence of the ruling, US authorities confirmed that certain tariff collections would immediately cease. The US Customs and Border Protection agency announced that duties imposed under the IEEPA would stop being collected at 12:01 a.m. local time on Tuesday, equivalent to 10:30 a.m. Indian Standard Time, bringing an end to enforcement of tariffs deemed unlawful by the court.
The ruling has intensified debate over the limits of presidential authority in trade policy, highlighting the legal boundaries between emergency economic powers and the constitutional role of Congress in regulating international commerce. While the judgment curtailed the use of emergency statutes for broad tariff policies, it also opened the door for continued disputes over how far executive power can extend under alternative trade laws.
