Trump’s tariffs struck down by the Supreme Court

By a six-to-three majority, the Court ruled that the president did not have the legal authority to impose such sweeping tariffs by invoking an emergency powers law—a statute designed to address fundamental crises, not to overhaul American trade policy.

For years, the tariffs imposed by Donald Trump increased prices for consumers and businesses, fueled tensions with trading partners, and created uncertainty in global markets. Critics of these measures argued that such high tariffs, often justified as national security protections, not only weigh on household budgets but also risk triggering retaliation and harming exports, including European ones.

The Court in fact recalled that the Constitution assigns to Congress—not the White House—the power to impose taxes and tariffs of such magnitude. That decision reinforces the principle of separation of powers and limits the increasingly expansive use of emergency laws to enact policies that should pass through Parliament.

From a practical standpoint, the ruling opens up a major question: companies and importers who have already paid these tariffs could seek reimbursement of billions of dollars, with uncertain effects on U.S. public finances.

This ruling comes amid an ongoing debate over the effectiveness of trade barriers and protectionism in a globalized economy. While supporters of tariffs justify them as a way to protect industry and jobs, critics—echoed by the Court—see in these measures an abuse of power and a burden on consumers, businesses, and international relations.

At a time when the global economy is already under pressure, this decision therefore represents not only a defeat for President Trump, but also an opportunity to rethink a trade policy that for too long has favored customs barriers over openness and cooperation.

Klevis Gjoka