Supreme Court strikes down Trump worldwide tariffs in 6-3 ruling decision

The Supreme Court just impeached the president Donald TrumpGlobal tariffs. In contrast to the instant opinion, Learning Resources v. Trump does not represent a permanent decline in presidential power. If Trump so chooses, he could restore many of his tariffs over the next year under different laws. But Learning Resources should put an end to the left’s attacks on the Court and the Constitution, while also highlighting the need for cooperation between the president and Congress in the conduct of foreign affairs.

Writing for a 6-3 majority, Chief Justice John Roberts reaffirmed two basic constitutional principles. First, he wrote, the Constitution grants the power to impose tariffs and taxes to Congress alone. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states that “Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, excises, and excises” and “to regulate commerce with foreign nations.” Second, Congress can delegate this power to the president. Congress passed a series of Trade laws Which she has. There was no real disagreement between any of the judges on these two basic points.

The justices are divided on whether Congress has given the president the authority to impose the unique immediate worldwide tariffs he imposed last year. on Liberation Day April 2025Trump invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) to set target tariffs not only on Canada, Mexico and China, but also a global tariff of at least 10% on all imports. Roberts, joined by a rare coalition of three conservative justices (himself, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett) and three liberal justices (Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson), held that the IEEPA did not give the executive branch the authority to impose tariffs.

The majority unjustifiably narrowed the scope of IEEPA. IEEPA gives the president authority, in the event of an “extraordinary and unusual threat” to U.S. national security, to Foreign policy or the economy from abroad, to investigate, prevent, “regulate, direct, compel, nullify, invalidate, prevent or prohibit” economic transactions with another country.

US tariff revenues rise 300% under Trump as Supreme Court fight approaches

The Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)

Trump declared that the large trade deficit created a national emergency; The court did not address this aspect of the tariff orders issued by the President. Instead, the court held that because Congress did not include the specific word “tariff” in IEEPA’s list of powers, it did not grant that authority to the executive branch.

“The President asserts the extraordinary power of Unilateral imposition of customs duties Of unlimited quantity, duration and scope. “Given the breadth, history, and context of that asserted authority, he must establish clear congressional authorization for its exercise,” Roberts wrote. “Giving IEEPA the authority to ‘regulate…importation’ is insufficient. IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties.”

This reading pays no attention to the way the United States has used the IEEPA and its predecessor, the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917. The government and lower courts have long recognized that the power to “regulate” commerce includes the power to impose a complete embargo on trade. Enemy countries like CubaIran and North Korea.

Supreme Court keeps nation waiting for Trump’s tariff decision, issues 3 less important opinions

IEEPA’s reference to powers to “regulate” and “prevent” the “importation” of foreign goods is sufficient to justify the President’s imposition of tariffs. In fact, tariffs, if high enough, become merely a tool to “prevent or prohibit” such “importation.”

However, learning resources will not prevent Trump from succeeding in the end. The resolution only states that the administration cannot impose tariffs under IEEPA. But Congress has passed several trade laws that clearly give the president the power to impose tariffs.

Using the titles Section 232, Section 301, and Super 301, among others, these laws allow the executive branch to impose reciprocal tariffs in response to higher tariffs on U.S. goods, impose sanctions on unfair trade practices by other countries, or address increased imports of a particular product. The Trade Act still allows for tariffs to be imposed on specific countries that pose a threat to the national security of the United States. The Supreme Court has left these powers intact, and as Trump made clear in his press conference, he intends to reinstate as many of his definitions as possible under these other laws.

Besant warns of ‘enormous loss’ if Supreme Court overturns Trump’s emergency tariff powers

Beyond a technical reading of trade laws and their impact on Trump’s economic policies, the learning resources hold deeper lessons about our constitutional system.

First, the decision belies attacks from the left that claim that the Supreme Court – especially its conservative majority – is simply approving the policies of the Trump administration. Here, two of Trump’s Supreme Court appointees, Gorsuch and Barrett, join Chief Justice Roberts, who was appointed by the president himself. George W. Bushin repealing Trump’s tariffs.

The government and lower courts have long understood that the power to “regulate” trade includes the power to impose complete embargoes on hostile nations, such as Cuba, Iran, and North Korea.

They are joined by the three justices appointed during the Obama and Biden administrations. These judges did not decide the case because they agree or disagree with the tariffs or love or hate Trump. They voted simply because of the way they read the lack of the word “tariff” in the IEEPA.

Click here for more Fox News opinions

Second, Education Resources denies the left’s cries that the United States is under an authoritarian regime. The learning resources show, once again, that Separation of powers It continues to work.

Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the majority opinion invalidating Trump’s tariffs. (Sean Theo Paul/Getty Images)

Congress alone has the power Imposing customs duties and taxes as part of its overall portfolio authority. It can delegate this authority to the president; And it has. But where existing laws remain silent, Congress retains the constitutional authority to set tariff rates. Trump did not claim the right to unilaterally impose tariffs under his executive authority; He has consistently argued that Congress has simply given him that authority in IEEPA. Even if he reimposes tariffs, he will have to use other trade laws enacted by Congress. The use of delegated powers under conditions established by Congress does not amount to tyranny.

Click here to download the FOX NEWS app

Finally, learning resources point the way for future cooperation between the President and Congress. The dissenters—Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh—argued that the court should have read the IEEPA broadly in order to allow the president to conduct foreign policy and protect national security. While the President bears the constitutional responsibility to address foreign threats and advance the nation’s interests abroad, the Constitution empowers Congress with international economic powers.

In order to advance the nation’s interests in regaining hegemony in the Western Hemisphere or counter the growing threat from China, the president and Congress will have to cooperate to ensure that economic policy plays a harmonious role in the overall American approach to the world.

Click here to read more from John Yoo