A person carrying a U.S. flag walks outside the U.S. Supreme Court as the justices are scheduled to hear oral arguments on President Donald Trump’s efforts to maintain significant tariffs after a lower court ruled that the president overstepped his authority, Nov. 5, 2025, in Washington, D.C.
Nathan Howard | Reuters
The Supreme Court on Friday struck down most of President Donald Trump’s far-reaching tariff policies.
The majority decided 6-3 that the law underlying these import tariffs “does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.”
Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the court’s opinion. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.
Since retaking the White House, Trump has rapidly restructured America’s longstanding trade relationships by imposing a stunning series of import tariffs that affect nearly every country on the planet.
Many of these tariffs were imposed using novel interpretations of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). These include President Trump’s near-global “reciprocal” tariffs as well as individual tariffs related to allegations of deadly drug trafficking into the United States.
IEEPA does not explicitly mention tariffs. Instead, it allows the president to “regulate the importation” of foreign real estate transactions after declaring a national emergency to address certain “unusual and unusual” threats.
The Trump administration argues that this language gives the president the power to impose tariffs on foreign goods.
Critics charged that the law does not allow the president to unilaterally impose surcharges of any size on any country at any time. Before the Supreme Court took up the case, the Federal Trade Court and the Federal Court of Appeals both ruled that President Trump’s IEEPA tariffs were illegal.
The bulk of US tariff revenue generated last year came from IEEPA tariffs.
President Trump announced a sweeping reciprocal tariff plan last April at a raucous White House event celebrating what he called America’s “Emancipation Day.”
This announcement caused sudden panic in the market and tariffs were immediately suspended. Since then, these policies have been repeatedly adjusted, postponed, and reimposed, adding confusion and complexity to the administration’s intricate trade policy.
Other tariffs under IEEPA include a set targeting Mexico, Canada, and China related to allegations that they allowed the deadly drug fentanyl to enter the United States.
President Trump, who has been fiercely critical of the United States’ recent history of entering into free trade agreements, has repeatedly praised tariffs as a rich source of revenue for the federal government and an important tool in negotiations with foreign partners and adversaries alike.
He has argued that foreign countries are paying for the tariffs and downplayed concerns that the tariffs would lead to higher prices for Americans. However, the administration acknowledged that the tariffs are paid by U.S. importers.
President Trump has argued that tariffs could replace income taxes because the revenue from them is so large. He has also floated the idea of sending $2,000 tariff dividend checks to Americans.
“We have received and will receive over $600 billion in tariffs soon,” he wrote in a recent Truth Social post.
Other estimates are significantly lower. For example, the Bipartisan Policy Center puts total U.S. customs revenue in 2025 at approximately $289 billion. U.S. Customs and Border Protection said it collected about $200 billion between January 20 and December 15.
Regarding IEEPA-specific tariffs, the government announced that they had collected approximately $129 billion in revenue as of December 10.
Ahead of the ruling, President Trump and his administration extensively debated the implications of the high court’s overturning of the tariffs.
“If the Supreme Court rules against the United States on this national security bonanza, we’re screwed!” President Trump wrote on January 12.
Meanwhile, U.S. officials, including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, said they believed the Supreme Court would not undo the president’s “signature” economic policy.
This is breaking news. Please check back for the latest information.
