Beyond the Dome: SCOTUS Rules Trump Tariffs Unconstitutional

By Katie Dusza, News Editor  

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that President Donald Trump’s controversially harsh tariffs are unconstitutional last Friday, Feb. 20. These tariffs were imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Within hours following the announcement, the Trump administration imposed new global tariffs.

The act pushed import tax rates up to 50% for key trading partners like Brazil and India. The tax rates went up to 145% for China. As of the time of the ruling, over $130 billion in tariffs have been collected. 

The Supreme Court agreed 6-3 that the tariffs exceeded the law. According to Chief Justice John Roberts “The president asserts the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration and scope.” In his writing for the court, he also stated “In light of the breadth, history, and constitutional context of that asserted authority, he must identify clear congressional authorization to exercise it,” and that the emergency authority Trump used to justify the tariffs “falls short,” according to Roberts. 

Two of the Supreme Court judges who voted against Trump, Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch, were appointed by him. Trump criticized them as well as the other four who voted against his favor at a news conference on Friday stating “The Supreme Court’s ruling on tariffs is deeply disappointing, and I’m ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed, for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country.”

Trump, along with some Justice Department officials, framed the deletion of his tariffs as detrimental for the country, telling the justices that “with tariffs, we are a rich nation,” but that without them “we are a poor nation.”

Initially, Trump’s tariffs were framed as a central economic policy tool that would reduce the trade deficit, raise revenue and strengthen domestic manufacturing. While tariff revenue increased, the trade deficit continued, and domestic manufacturing did not return at scale. Ultimately, trade flows rerouted, shifting production across countries rather than back to the United States.