- The US Supreme Court ruled 6-3 against President Trump's global tariffs, striking them down.
- Chief Justice Roberts stated only Congress can impose tariffs under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.
- The Court held IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs without clear congressional approval.
In a big setback to US President Donald Trump, the Supreme Court on Friday struck down sweeping global tariffs. The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 against tariffs, handing POTUS a significant defeat.
The ruling was authored by Chief Justice John Roberts. Justices Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh and Samuel Alito dissented.
According to the court order, Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution specifies that “the Congress
shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises.”
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, "The Framers recognized the unique importance of this taxing power—a power which “very clearly” includes the power to impose tariffs.
“The Framers did not vest any part of the taxing power in the Executive Branch,” Roberts noted.
Trump Tariff Verdict LIVE Updates: US Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump's Tariffs; President Calls Ruling 'Disgrace'
Further, in the 6-3 opinion, the Chief Justice wrote, “The President asserts the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope. In light of the breadth, history, and constitutional context of that asserted authority, he must identify clear congressional authorization to exercise it,” he wrote.
"IEEPA's grant of authority to “regulate . . . Importation” falls short. IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties. The Government points to no statute in which Congress used the word “regulate” to authorize taxation. And until now, no President has read the IEEPA to confer such power," reads the order.
"We claim no special competence in matters of economics or foreign affairs. We claim only, as we must, the limited role assigned to us by Article III of the Constitution. Fulfilling that role, we hold that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs," said the court.
Earlier, several times, Trump warned that striking down his tariffs would have 'catastrophic consequences for national security, foreign policy and the economy.
Dissenting, Judge Brett Kavanaugh said that the tariffs at issue here may or may not be wise policy. "But as a matter of text, history, and precedent, they are clearly lawful. I respectfully dissent."
Also Read: Trump Tariffs: Gift Nifty Futures Rejoice SC's Ruling Against Levies, Jump 300 Points
Kavanaugh noted that the Court's decision is not likely to greatly restrict Presidential tariff authority going forward, but the Court's decision is likely to generate other serious practical consequences in the near term.
"One issue will be refunds. Refunds of billions of dollars would have significant consequences for the US Treasury. The Court says nothing today about whether, and if so how, the Government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers. But that process is likely to be a “mess,” as was acknowledged at oral argument.
Kavanaugh pointed out that the second issue is the decision's effect on the current trade deals.
"Because IEEPA tariffs have helped facilitate trade deals worth trillions of dollars—including with foreign nations from China to the United Kingdom to Japan, the Court's decision could generate uncertainty regarding various trade agreements. That process, too, could be difficult."
Stating that for those who think it's important for the nation to impose more tariffs, concurring Justice Gorsuch said, "I understand that today's decision will be disappointing. All I can offer them is that most major decisions affecting the rights and responsibilities of the American people (including the duty to pay taxes and tariffs) are funneled through the legislative process for a reason. Yes, legislating can be hard and take time."
Another dissenting judge, Justice Clarence Thomas, stated that in some cases, the Court has used the major questions doctrine as a canon of statutory interpretation because delegations of major powers are unlikely to be subtle. "In other cases, the Court has used it to avoid what would have been originally understood as an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. In today's cases, neither the statutory text nor the Constitution provide a basis for ruling against the President. I respectfully dissent.
Essential Business Intelligence, Continuous LIVE TV, Sharp Market Insights, Practical Personal Finance Advice and Latest Stories — On NDTV Profit.