International Desk : VOC

In a historic decision, the US Supreme Court has struck down the controversial global tariff policy imposed by former President Donald Trump, declaring that the move exceeded presidential authority and violated constitutional limits.

The ruling, passed by a 6–3 majority, marks a decisive moment in the long-running debate over executive power and trade policy in the United States. The Court concluded that Trump misused emergency powers to introduce sweeping import tariffs without congressional approval.

Constitutional Conflict: Executive Power vs Congressional Authority

Under the US Constitution, the exclusive authority to impose taxes and tariffs rests with the U.S. Congress. The President does not hold direct power to levy trade duties independently.

However, the Trump administration relied on the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), declaring a national emergency to justify the unilateral imposition of large-scale tariffs on imports.

The Supreme Court ruled that:

“IEEPA does not grant extraordinary or unlimited authority to impose tariffs. If Congress intended such power, it would have been explicitly stated in the statute.”

The Court emphasized that emergency legislation cannot be transformed into a permanent economic weapon and that trade policy must remain under legislative oversight.

Economic Consequences: A Multi-Trillion Dollar Impact

According to data from the U.S. Budget Office, Trump’s tariff policy was projected to impact the American economy by nearly $3 trillion over the next decade.

Government records further show that the U.S. Treasury has already collected more than $133 billion from importers through emergency-based tariffs. With the policy now declared unconstitutional, legal uncertainty surrounds the future of these funds.

Experts warn that the ruling could trigger one of the largest refund and compensation processes in U.S. economic history.

Corporate Backlash and Legal Action

Following the verdict, major U.S. corporations have moved swiftly to seek legal redress. Retail giant Costco, along with several multinational firms, has filed lawsuits demanding reimbursement of tariff payments.

Corporate leaders argue that:

“Businesses were forced to pay unconstitutional taxes. The government must now return those funds.”

This growing corporate revolt highlights the deep economic strain caused by the tariff regime on supply chains, consumer prices, and international trade relationships.

Political and Global Significance

The Supreme Court’s decision is being viewed as a powerful warning to future presidents against expanding executive authority beyond constitutional limits.

Key implications include:

Emergency powers cannot override congressional control of trade policy

Tariffs cannot be used as personal political instruments

Congress remains the ultimate authority on taxation and commerce

Internationally, the ruling signals a shift away from Trump-era protectionism and could reshape future U.S. trade negotiations with key partners.

Strategic Conclusion

Donald Trump consistently defended his tariff strategy as essential for America’s national and economic security. However, the Supreme Court has now reframed the issue as one of democratic accountability and constitutional balance.

As legal battles over refunds and compensation begin, the ruling stands as a defining moment in the struggle between executive ambition and institutional restraint.

Final Line

This verdict is not merely about tariffs.

It redraws the boundary between presidential power and constitutional democracy in the United States.

International Desk : Voice of Calcutta