Supreme Court tariff ruling ‘significant’ but foreseeable
“This is a relatively unsurprising outcome, based on the skeptical reception by the justices during fall’s oral arguments,” said Dan Urman of Northeastern University School of Law.
The Supreme Court struck down President Trump’s tariffs on Friday, ruling that the president exceeded his authority in imposing the taxes on imported goods and delivering a serious blow to a key tool in the administration’s economic policy agenda.
While not completely unexpected given the skeptical reception of the justices to the tariffs decision during their fall oral arguments, the judgment is nonetheless significant, experts said.
“The Supreme Court has not stood up to President Trump’s aggressive executive actions in a sustained way, so today’s ruling is more of an exception than a rule,” said Dan Urman, director of online and hybrid programs at Northeastern School of Law.
Asha Sundaram, chair of economics at Northeastern, agreed that the ruling demonstrated the resiliency of the American courts.
“It’s in a sense a signal that some checks and balances exist and that the institutions are working the way we hope they would,” Sundaram said.
President Trump had promised to enact tariffs as a major part of his second-term economic agenda, and claimed that a 1977 emergency statute called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act , or IEEPA, enabled him to do so without Congressional approval.
The IEEPA doesn’t mention the word “tariffs,” however, and Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts led the majority in rejecting the president’s claim.
“The president asserts the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope,” the chief justice wrote. “In light of the breadth, history, and constitutional context of that asserted authority, he must identify clear congressional authorization to exercise it.”
“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 said.
The president vowed to “go in a different direction” and work around the ruling by signing a new executive order for a 10% global tariff under another law.
Sundaram underscored that the ruling does not outlaw tariffs completely, calling them “legitimate tools,” and a “valid policy instrument” in certain economic situations, and from a national security perspective.
But she criticized the speed in which the administration imposed the import taxes, the reasoning behind their use, and that they were used as leverage for negotiations, among other points.
Editor’s Picks
“It’s not that they cannot impose tariffs,” Sundaram said. “The way they impose them, and the arbitrariness and the speed with which they impose them, and the reasons for which they impose them, would hopefully be more streamlined after this signal from the Supreme Court,” she said.
Law professor Jeremy Paul agreed, and noted that the majority opinion also delineates Congress – not the president – as having the most power to determine tariffs.
“The case is not about the wisdom, or lack thereof, of tariffs; the case is about who gets to decide what the tariffs are,” Paul said. “The deep underlying principle is that tariffs are basically taxes, and our Constitution gives Congress the power to impose taxes.”
“This is a very striking, significant decision upholding the power of Congress in contradiction to the power of the president,” Paul concluded.
The ruling, however, does not resolve one of the main criticisms that opponents cite, namely that the tariffs created economic uncertainty.
Sundaram questioned whether the tariffs already imposed would be refunded, how the government would calculate refunds for businesses and groups that might be eligible and how long it would take for the fallout to settle.
“I’m not so optimistic that it’s all back to business as usual and everything will be fine again,” Sundaram said. “It just in some perverse sense, adds to all the uncertainty.”
Paul agreed.
“The majority basically announced our principle, which is that these tariffs are unlawful, but without a practical punch as to what’s going to happen now,” Paul said.
Urman noted that while the ruling helps Roberts’ mission to present the court as “non-political,” it was unclear whether the justices would follow through with rulings against the administration in other cases involving presidential power this term.
These include whether the executive branch can unilaterally fire the chair of the Federal Reserve and other government regulators, and outlaw birthright citizenship.
Urman said that the dissent from Thomas Alito and Brett Kavanaugh to invalidate Trump’s tariffs suggests that “there is very little that President Trump can do that is out of bounds for these Justices,” he said.
