Supreme Court Kills Emergency Tariffs, Not Trump’s Trade Agenda

The U.S. Supreme Court struck down President Donald Trump’s sweeping global tariffs on Friday in a 6-3 ruling that dismantles the central pillar of his economic agenda. Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by three liberal justices and conservative Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the president to impose tariffs.

The president claims the power to impose tariffs on any country, any product, at any rate, at any time, the majority wrote, but the words of the statute “cannot bear such weight.” IEEPA, passed in 1977, makes no mention of tariffs, and no president in its half-century existence had ever invoked it for import taxes before Trump launched his “Liberation Day” tariffs in April 2025.

The signal came early. When November’s oral arguments opened, Roberts immediately characterized tariffs as a tax — framing that put the administration on the defensive, since the Constitution assigns taxing authority exclusively to Congress. Even sympathetic legal observers acknowledged the government could not escape that language.

The refund mess

The ruling invalidates both the “reciprocal” tariffs on nearly every trading partner and the levies on Canada, China and Mexico tied to fentanyl trafficking. The government collected roughly $133 billion (~R$750 billion) in IEEPA tariff revenue through mid-December 2025, with the total believed to exceed $175 billion (~R$985 billion).

Companies including Costco, Toyota Group subsidiaries and Revlon had already filed lawsuits seeking refunds. The court offered no guidance on the process. Justice Kavanaugh warned in his dissent that it will be a “mess,” noting many costs have already been passed to consumers. Legal scholars describe the looming refund battle as potentially years of expensive litigation unless Congress intervenes.

Not the end of tariffs

The decision does not strip Trump of all tariff authority. Levies imposed under other trade statutes — including those on steel, aluminum and copper — remain in force. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and other officials have signaled backup plans to maintain the tariff structure through alternative legal pathways, though these carry tighter constraints on speed and scope.

Justice Gorsuch, in a concurrence, raised a broader constitutional alarm — questioning whether the government’s logic would also let Congress hand over the power to declare war. Justice Thomas, dissenting alongside Kavanaugh and Alito, countered that statutory text and precedent supported presidential discretion over foreign trade.

U.S. stocks rose after the ruling, with the S&P 500 up 0.3% and the Nasdaq gaining 0.5%. The effective tariff rate is expected to drop from roughly 18% to about 9% — still far above pre-Trump levels. Pressure now shifts to Congress, where a legislative fix granting explicit tariff authority is the clearest path but an unlikely one in an election year.

For Latin American exporters, the implications are immediate. Brazil faced targeted IEEPA tariffs of up to 40% on certain goods, while Mexico and Canada were hit with 25% to 35% levies. Those duties now lack legal backing — but the administration’s intent to reimpose them means trade uncertainty is far from over. This is part of The Rio Times’ daily coverage of Brazil politics and Latin American financial news.