The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a significant blow to President Trump's agenda Friday, striking down his sweeping global tariffs in a 6-3 decision. The ruling marks the first time the high court has rejected a major Trump policy after months of largely supporting his initiatives.
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a major setback to President Donald Trump on Friday, rejecting his sweeping global tariff plan and demonstrating the judicial branch’s willingness to limit executive power.
Following a year where the nation’s highest court supported Trump in approximately two dozen cases – enabling rapid changes to immigration policy, military regulations, and federal employment rules – the justices drew a clear line with this decision.
Friday’s landmark 6-3 ruling dismantled one of Trump’s key second-term objectives, determining that his comprehensive tariff strategy against nearly all U.S. trade partners violated federal law.
Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts authored the decisive opinion, which left no room for ambiguity in completely invalidating the tariffs without addressing potential impacts on refunds, trade agreements, or political consequences.
The decision has renewed the Supreme Court’s position as a constitutional check on presidential authority, addressing growing concerns from critics and legal experts about the court’s independence.
“The court has shown it will not necessarily provide legal cover for every plank of Trump’s platform,” explained Peter Shane, a constitutional law expert at New York University School of Law.
The majority opinion rejected Trump’s interpretation of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), ruling that no previous president had attempted to use this statute for tariff implementation.
Roberts directly challenged Trump’s legal reasoning in the written decision: “Our task today is to decide only whether the power to ‘regulate … importation,’ as granted to the president in IEEPA, embraces the power to impose tariffs. It does not.”
William & Mary Law School professor Jonathan Adler emphasized the ruling’s broader significance: “The decision shows that the Supreme Court is serious about policing the scope of power delegated to the president by Congress.”
“The president cannot just pour new wine out of old bottles,” Adler continued. “If there are problems current statutes do not address, the president must ask Congress for a newer vintage.”
The verdict crossed traditional ideological boundaries within the court’s 6-3 conservative majority. Roberts joined with fellow conservative justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett – both Trump appointees from his first presidency – alongside the three liberal justices to overturn the tariff policy. Three remaining conservative justices opposed the decision.
Trump responded with harsh criticism, targeting the Republican-appointed justices who voted against him with personal attacks, labeling them “fools” and “lapdogs” for Democrats.
“They’re very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution,” Trump declared to reporters, adding his belief that “the court has been swayed by foreign interests.”
Throughout 2025, the Supreme Court had consistently backed Trump’s emergency appeals to suspend lower court injunctions blocking his most aggressive policies while legal challenges proceeded.
These emergency decisions – part of the court’s “shadow docket” – typically receive expedited handling without comprehensive briefing or oral arguments, contrasting with regular cases that undergo months of review. The tariff case received full argument proceedings in November.
In 28 emergency cases during Trump’s current term, the court ruled favorably for the administration in 24 instances, with one case dismissed as moot. These victories permitted Trump to dismiss federal workers, assume control of independent agencies, exclude transgender individuals from military service, and deport migrants to nations with which they have no connection.
These successes built upon a significant 2024 Roberts-authored ruling granting Trump extensive immunity from criminal prosecution related to 2020 election interference allegations. The combination of that decision and subsequent wins raised questions about the Supreme Court’s independence and commitment to challenging presidential overreach.
Trump previously demanded impeachment of a judge who ruled against his deportation policies, calling the jurist a “Radical Left Lunatic” – prompting public criticism from Chief Justice Roberts.
Concerns have also emerged about potential Trump administration defiance of adverse federal court orders, which could trigger a constitutional crisis.
The pattern of pro-Trump decisions frustrated the court’s liberal wing, with Justice Ketanja Brown Jackson noting in one opinion that “this administration always wins.”
However, some legal experts counseled patience, suggesting the court’s recent accommodation of Trump might shift when examining major policies through thorough deliberation – which occurred Friday.
“The shadow docket decisions were never evidence of the court being particularly sympathetic to or solicitous of the Trump administration,” Adler observed. “This case, on the other hand, is the first time the court has considered one of the Trump administration’s policy initiatives on the merits.”
The court will examine another controversial Trump policy on April 1, hearing arguments about his directive limiting birthright citizenship in the United States.
During Trump’s initial presidency, the Supreme Court handed him notable defeats in crucial cases, including rejection of his census citizenship question proposal and his attempt to terminate deportation protections for “Dreamers” – immigrants who entered the country illegally as children.
University of California, Berkeley law professor John Yoo highlighted the bipartisan nature of Friday’s tariff ruling, noting participation from justices appointed by both Republican and Democratic presidents.
“The decision belies the attacks from the left that the Supreme Court – particularly its conservative majority – simply rubber-stamps the Trump administration’s policies,” said Yoo, a former clerk to conservative Justice Clarence Thomas.
Shane observed that the tariff case avoided requiring the court to evaluate Trump’s policy wisdom or judgment quality, potentially preserving presidential power in other areas.
“The ruling does suggest that, on pure questions of law that do not put the court in the position of smacking down Trump’s motives or second-guessing his judgment, there is a majority that will not rubber-stamp his action,” Shane concluded.