Developing: Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump's Tariffs in Landmark 6-3 Ruling — President Fires Back With New 10% Global Levy

At the heart of the case was a deceptively simple legal question: Does IEEPA — a 1977 law that grants the president power to "regulate" trade during national emergencies — authorize the imposition of tariffs? The majority said no. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that the law makes no mention of the word "tariffs" and that when Congress has historically delegated tariff authority, it has done so "in explicit terms and subject to strict limits."

"Had Congress intended to convey the distinct and extraordinary power to impose tariffs, it would have done so expressly, as it consistently has in other tariff statutes," Roberts wrote in the 21-page opinion. He emphasized that the nation's founders "deliberately and explicitly placed the power to impose taxes, including tariffs, with Congress" — a principle rooted in the American Revolution itself, which was "motivated in large part by taxes imposed on them" by the King of England without consent.

The majority was composed of Chief Justice Roberts, Trump appointees Gorsuch and Barrett, and the three liberal justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented. Kavanaugh wrote a 63-page dissenting opinion warning that the ruling could generate uncertainty regarding trade arrangements worth trillions of dollars and predicted the refund process would be a "mess." The decision was notable for its sheer volume of separate writings: four concurring opinions — including a 46-page concurrence by Justice Gorsuch — alongside the dissents, reflecting a court that NPR legal correspondent Nina Totenberg described as "deeply fractured."

Trump's reaction was swift and scorching. At the hastily convened press conference, the president called the conservative justices who sided with the majority "very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution" and said they were "an embarrassment to their families." He even veered into relitigating the 2020 election, criticizing the court for not having "invalidated the election results." The language represented a striking escalation; just a year ago, Trump had warmly shaken hands with Chief Justice Roberts at the State of the Union address after the court granted presidents expansive immunity from prosecution for official acts.

Later that evening, Trump signed a proclamation imposing a replacement 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, set to take effect on February 24. This provision — never previously used by any president — allows tariffs of up to 15% for 150 days to address "large and serious" balance-of-payment issues, after which Congress must approve any extension. The new tariffs include notable exemptions for certain minerals, natural resources, fertilizers, some agricultural products, pharmaceuticals, certain electronics, and vehicles. Goods from Canada and Mexico covered by the USMCA trade pact are also exempt.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, speaking at the Economic Club of Dallas, projected confidence, saying the administration would leverage multiple existing tariff laws to ensure "virtually unchanged tariff revenue in 2026." Trump also directed U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer to open Section 301 investigations into "unreasonable and discriminatory" trade practices by most major trading partners — a process that could yield additional tariffs on an "accelerated timeline." However, the nonpartisan Tax Foundation estimated that the Section 122 tariffs would generate just over half the revenue of the invalidated IEEPA duties, suggesting a significant near-term fiscal gap.

Perhaps the most consequential unresolved issue from the ruling is whether the federal government must refund the tariffs it has already collected. U.S. Customs and Border Protection reported collecting approximately $133.5 billion in IEEPA tariffs as of mid-December, a figure that has risen since. The Penn Wharton Budget Model's estimate of $175 billion reflects the total through the date of the ruling. Chief Justice Roberts' opinion was notably silent on the refund mechanism, leaving it to lower courts — particularly the specialized Court of International Trade in New York — to determine.

Companies have already been lining up. Major importers including Costco, Revlon, and Bumble Bee Foods filed pre-emptive lawsuits seeking refunds before the ruling was even handed down. Trade lawyer Joyce Adetutu of Vinson & Elkins told the Associated Press that while it will be a "bumpy ride," she believes refunds will eventually flow because "it's going to be really difficult not to have some sort of refund option" given the decisiveness of the ruling. Veteran trade lawyer Robert Leo agreed, noting that "customs has all this information electronically" and that the process, while large in scale, is technically feasible.

Trump, however, signaled he would not make it easy. "I guess it has to get litigated for the next two years," he told reporters, predicting the matter would be "in court for the next five years." Several Democratic governors moved quickly to stake claims on behalf of their constituents: Illinois Governor JB Pritzker sent Trump an invoice demanding nearly $9 billion — approximately $1,700 per family — while Nevada Treasurer Zach Conine submitted a $2.1 billion payment request. Consumers, however, are unlikely to see direct refunds; the money would flow primarily to the importing companies that paid the duties, and economists say it would be nearly impossible for individual consumers to trace higher retail prices back to specific tariff payments.

International reaction was measured but broadly positive. French President Emmanuel Macron remarked that the ruling demonstrated the value of "checks and balances in democracies," adding that France would study the implications of the new 10% tariff. The European Commission said it "takes note" of the ruling and was analyzing it carefully, with spokesperson Olof Gill emphasizing that businesses on both sides of the Atlantic depend on "stability and predictability." Canada's Minister for U.S.-Canadian Trade Relations, Dominic LeBlanc, said the decision "reinforces Canada's position that the IEEPA tariffs imposed by the United States are unjustified."

Taiwan, home to the world's leading semiconductor manufacturer TSMC, conducted a rapid assessment and concluded that the new 10% flat tariff would have "limited impact" on its economy, noting it would maintain close communication with Washington. Switzerland's technology industry association Swissmem, however, offered a more cautious perspective: "From the perspective of the Swiss export industry, this is a good decision. The high tariffs have severely damaged the tech industry. However, today's ruling doesn't win anything yet."

The International Chamber of Commerce acknowledged that many businesses will welcome the ruling given the "significant strain" placed on balance sheets, but warned that companies "should not expect a simple process" for recouping tariff payments. The British Chambers of Commerce echoed that sentiment, saying the ruling "does little to clear the murky waters" and warning that Trump still has "other options at his disposal." Indeed, a White House official told CNBC that countries which had previously negotiated trade deals — including the U.K., India, and the EU — will now face the new 10% global tariff, effectively replacing whatever rates they had previously agreed to, even though the administration expects those countries to maintain the concessions they made.

While the Supreme Court closed the IEEPA door, multiple legal avenues remain for the administration to pursue its tariff agenda. The most immediate is Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which Trump has already invoked. But its 150-day limit and 15% cap make it a temporary measure at best. The clock begins ticking on February 24, giving the administration until late July before Congressional approval is required — a prospect that is far from certain even with Republican majorities in both chambers, given that some GOP members privately welcomed the court's ruling. Fox News reported that several Republican senators celebrated the decision, with one quoted anonymously saying "tariffs suck."

Beyond Section 122, the administration is eyeing Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which allows tariffs to address national security threats. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has already built on earlier steel and aluminum tariffs under this provision, adding 407 imports to the tariff list. The advantage is that Section 232 tariffs have been tested and upheld in court; the drawback is that they require a formal Commerce Department investigation, making them slower to implement. Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which addresses unfair trade practices, is another route the administration is actively pursuing — a federal appeals court upheld Section 301 tariffs on China as recently as September. However, these investigations typically require negotiations with targeted countries and the tariffs sunset after four years.

Geoffrey Gertz, senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, offered perhaps the most succinct assessment of the current landscape: "Things have only gotten more complicated and more messy today." The economic stakes are considerable. NPR noted that the federal government had been collecting approximately $30 billion per month in tariff revenue, roughly half of which is now eliminated by the ruling. That revenue was intended to help offset Republican-backed tax cuts passed in the prior year, creating a potential fiscal hole that the administration must now scramble to fill through alternative tariff mechanisms — or acknowledge as an addition to the federal deficit.