Washington (Rajeev Sharma): In a landmark ruling with major implications for global commerce, the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday struck down a series of tariffs imposed by former President Donald Trump, concluding that he exceeded his authority by invoking emergency powers to levy duties on Canada, Mexico and numerous other countries.
In a majority opinion authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court held that the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant the president unilateral authority to impose sweeping tariffs. The judgment affirms earlier lower court decisions that found the measures unlawful.
The tariffs were introduced after Trump declared national emergencies tied to fentanyl trafficking and longstanding U.S. trade deficits. Those declarations formed the legal basis for broad import duties on key trading partners, including Canada and Mexico, as well as so-called “reciprocal” tariffs targeting dozens of countries.
Roberts wrote that the statutory language cited by the administration could not reasonably be interpreted to authorize blanket tariffs. He emphasized that the U.S. Constitution assigns Congress the exclusive power to levy taxes and duties, underscoring the limits of executive authority in trade matters.
Notably, Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch—both appointed during Trump’s presidency—joined the chief justice and the court’s liberal members in the majority. Justice Brett Kavanaugh dissented, raising concerns about unresolved questions, including whether businesses that paid billions in tariffs may be entitled to refunds.
The decision represents a significant setback for Trump’s trade strategy, which relied heavily on the threat or imposition of tariffs as leverage in negotiations. He had described the authority to act swiftly on tariffs as a crucial diplomatic and economic tool, arguing that the duties generated revenue and strengthened U.S. bargaining power.
While the ruling invalidates tariffs imposed under IEEPA, other trade measures remain intact. Duties applied under Section 232 of U.S. trade law—typically justified on national security grounds and targeting specific industries such as steel, aluminum and automobiles—are unaffected. Additionally, many goods traded under the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) had already been exempted from certain fentanyl-related tariffs.
The broader economic impact of the ruling remains uncertain. Business groups involved in the litigation had argued that companies collectively paid record sums in tariff revenues over recent months. The court’s decision does not address whether those funds must be returned.
In Ottawa, Trade Minister Dominic LeBlanc welcomed the judgment, stating that it validates Canada’s longstanding position that the emergency tariffs lacked justification. However, he acknowledged that work continues to remove remaining industry-specific duties, particularly those affecting steel, aluminum and the automotive sector.
Canadian business leaders cautioned that the decision does not mark the end of trade tensions. Candace Laing, head of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, warned that Washington could pursue alternative measures to exert economic pressure.
Industry representatives also highlighted ongoing challenges. Flavio Volpe of Canada’s Automotive Parts Manufacturers’ Association said the ruling affirms legal limits on presidential power but noted that national security tariffs remain in place, continuing to affect manufacturers and workers.
The judgment stands as a rare rebuke from a conservative-leaning court that had previously expanded presidential authority in certain areas. Legal analysts say it reinforces congressional primacy in matters of taxation and trade policy, even as political debates over tariffs and global economic strategy continue.
