The US Supreme Court struck down President Donald Trump’s sweeping import tariffs in a 6-3 decision, finding that he had exceeded his authority by using legislation intended for national emergencies to impose taxes on imported goods. The ruling said such import taxes require congressional approval.
Trump responded by turning to Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, a provision that had not previously been used in this way. He initially announced a 10% global tariff and, the following day, raised the rate to 15%, the maximum permitted under that section. The replacement measure can remain in force for 150 days before Congress must act.
In a social-media post, Trump said his administration would spend the coming months identifying and issuing tariffs that comply with the law. He sharply criticised the court’s judgment, while maintaining that the new approach would raise more revenue than the tariff system invalidated by the justices.
The decision was supported by the court’s three liberal justices—Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor—and three conservative justices: Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch and Chief Justice John Roberts. The outcome placed a significant legal limit on the administration’s use of tariffs as an instrument of economic and diplomatic policy, without removing other tariff powers available under federal law.
The rapid switch to Section 122 prolonged uncertainty for businesses and US trading partners. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz warned about the effect of that uncertainty on the global economy. The British Chambers of Commerce said higher duties would hurt trade, consumers and companies, and weaken economic growth. Its trade policy chief, William Bain, called for greater clarity on both sides of the Atlantic.
The UK government said it expected Britain to retain its privileged trading position with the United States. A White House official said countries that had negotiated earlier trade arrangements, including the UK, would face the Section 122 global rate rather than their previously agreed general tariff. However, British sectoral arrangements covering steel, aluminium, pharmaceuticals, cars and aerospace were not affected, according to the report.
Questions also remained about refunds for businesses that had already paid tariffs now deemed unlawful. Political reactions divided along familiar lines: Democratic lawmakers criticised the new levies, while Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a Republican, described tariffs as a potentially effective tool against unfair foreign competition. Democratic Senator John Fetterman said he could support targeted action against China but questioned applying tariffs to US allies.
The legal route changed, but the administration’s commitment to tariffs did not. Unless Congress approves an extension, the 15% measure’s statutory clock leaves the next major decision with lawmakers.
