Supreme Court Clips Trump's Tariff Wings

$142 billion. That's how much the Trump administration might have to refund after today's Supreme Court ruling declared many of his tariffs illegal. It's a staggering figure that represents more than just money—it's a constitutional reckoning.

The Power Grab That Went Too Far

Trump's favorite presidential power has always been the tariff threat. Remember "Liberation Day" in April 2025, when America declared economic warfare on the world? He wielded tariffs like a medieval king's decree—swift, arbitrary, and devastating.

The mechanism was the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law designed for sanctions, not tariffs. After declaring national emergencies over fentanyl smuggling and illegal immigration, Trump bypassed Congress entirely. He slapped tariffs on China, Canada, Mexico, and others through executive orders alone.

This violated a fundamental constitutional principle: Article I gives Congress—not the president—exclusive power to collect taxes and tariffs. Yet a GOP-controlled Congress watched silently as the executive branch seized one of their core authorities. Among Republicans, the former party of Reagan and free trade, only scattered voices objected.

A Fractured but Decisive Ruling

The Court's 6-3 decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump creates an unlikely alliance. Three conservative justices—John Roberts, Amy Coney Barrett, and Neil Gorsuch—joined the three liberals to strike down Trump's IEEPA tariffs.

Chief Justice Roberts' controlling opinion cuts to the heart: "Based on two words separated by 16 others in Section 1702(a)(1)(B) of IEEPA—'regulate' and 'importation'—the President asserts the independent power to impose tariffs on imports from any country, of any product, at any rate, for any amount of time. Those words cannot bear such weight."

But the 170-page ruling reveals deep judicial tensions. Seven of nine justices wrote separate opinions, largely consumed with sniping over the "major questions doctrine"—a conservative legal standard that invalidates sweeping presidential actions based on vague congressional delegations.

The irony is rich: This doctrine previously torpedoed Democratic priorities like Obama's Clean Power Plan and Biden's student loan forgiveness. Now it might have saved democracy from executive overreach—if the justices could agree on applying it.

Trump's Backup Arsenal

Trump's immediate reaction was predictable fury. He called the opposing justices "very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution" and had previously warned on Truth Social: "WE'RE SCREWED!"

But he's far from powerless. Americans will still face a 9.1% effective tariff on imports from existing authorities. Trump can impose tariffs after completing investigations into national security threats or unfair trade practices. Today, he announced invoking Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act for a 10% duty.

More exotic options await: Section 338 of the 1930 Tariff Act allows up to 50% duties on countries discriminating against American goods. As Georgetown law professor Kathleen Claussen told me: "We've gone from a relatively simple universe to a much more complicated one."

The Democratic Victory Hidden in Economic Continuity

For consumers and importers, don't expect permanent relief. The trade deals struck under tariff threats are unlikely to unwind. Congress has simply given a tariff-obsessed president too many tools.

But the ruling's democratic significance transcends economics. Had conservative justices succumbed to partisan loyalty, they would have authorized a complete breakdown in separation of powers—not just for Trump, but for future Democratic presidents who might invoke climate emergencies to impose carbon taxes.

The Court's skepticism toward executive overreach that stymied Democratic administrations now applies equally to a Republican one. This isn't judicial partisanship—it's institutional integrity.