The President, visibly angered by the Friday ruling, immediately pivoted to a new legal strategy, vowing to circumvent the court’s decision and press forward with his protectionist agenda.
The Court’s Verdict: A Limit on Executive Power
The Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision struck down the Trump administration’s broad, blanket tariffs, which had been imposed under the guise of national security. The majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, firmly rebuked the executive branch's interpretation of the law.
In a clear and decisive opinion, the court stated that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) —the statute the administration relied upon—does not grant the president the authority to unilaterally impose tariffs. "The framers of the Constitution explicitly granted Congress the power to levy taxes, including duties and tariffs," Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the majority. "They did not vest any part of that sovereign power in the executive branch."
The ruling was a clear affirmation of congressional authority over trade and fiscal policy, and a significant check on the expansion of presidential power.
A Furious Response: "A Horrible Decision"
President Trump did not conceal his fury. Emerging just moments after the ruling, he launched a blistering attack on the nation’s highest court, calling the decision "absolutely horrible" and expressing his profound disappointment.
In an impromptu press conference, the President went further, leveling an unsubstantiated accusation against the judiciary. "I'm ashamed that some of them don't have the courage to do what's right for our country," he said, later adding, "The court was influenced by foreign interests." When pressed for evidence to support this explosive claim, he offered none, retorting simply, "You'll find out."
He framed the court’s logic as absurd, arguing, "The court said I can't charge a single dollar to any country under IEEPA... but it said I can cut off all trade and business with that same country. In other words, I can destroy their economy, but I can't charge them a single dollar. It makes no sense."
The Countermove: A New Tariff, A New Law
Refusing to accept the judicial setback, President Trump announced he would immediately implement a new trade policy. In a post on his Truth Social platform, he declared, "It is my great honor to sign, from the Oval Office, a 10% Global Tariff on all countries, which will go into effect almost immediately."
This time, the administration is grounding its authority in a different statute: Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. This law permits the president to impose temporary tariffs—capped at 15% for a maximum of 150 days—to address a "large and serious balance-of-payments deficit."
This shift in legal strategy is significant. Unlike the open-ended tariffs previously in place, which were based on a continuous national emergency, the new 10% levy has a built-in expiration date and cannot be extended without congressional approval. The President confirmed that other existing tariffs, such as those on steel and aluminum, would remain in effect under their original legal justifications.
A Legal and Economic Minefield
The administration’s rapid pivot has thrown the future of American trade policy into a state of flux and created a complex legal predicament. The most immediate question concerns the fate of the billions of dollars already collected under the now-invalidated tariff regime, estimated by some to be in excess of $175 billion. The President himself acknowledged the protracted legal battle ahead, admitting, "This will be litigated for the next two years," and could end up back in the courts for "five years to come."
Reactions to the day’s events were swift and divided. On Wall Street and Main Street, business groups welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision. The National Retail Federation praised the ruling, stating it "provides much-needed certainty for American businesses and manufacturers."
Internationally, allies and adversaries alike reacted with caution. The European Union said it was studying the ruling and would remain in close contact with the administration. Canada called the decision a confirmation that the original tariffs were "unjustified."
Despite the legal and economic uncertainty, the White House signaled its intent to continue the fight. In a defiant post on social media platform X, the official account wrote: "Keep Calm and Tariff On."
The coming days and weeks will determine the immediate impact of the new 10% tariff, but the fundamental battle over the balance of power between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches in shaping America’s trade policy has just entered a new and highly uncertain chapter.