What The 3 Judges In Favour Of Trump’s Tariffs Said In US Supreme Court?

The United States Supreme Court invalidated former President Donald Trump’s global tariffs imposed under emergency powers, citing limits under IEEPA. The decision affects refunds and ongoing litigation as importers seek repayment and clarifies presidential authority in trade policy.

The United States Supreme Court has struck down former President Donald Trump's global tariffs, ruling 6-3 that Trump exceeded legal limits when using emergency powers.

The decision curbs presidential authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which the court said could not justify such sweeping and flexible tariff measures.

The majority opinion warned against the interpretation offered by government lawyers, stating: "The Government reads IEEPA to give the President power to unilaterally impose unbounded tariffs and change them at will.

That view would represent a transformative expansion of the President's authority over tariff policy," highlighting concerns over unchecked executive control.

Trump global tariffs Supreme Court vote breakdown

The ideological alignment of the justices shifted in this case, with liberal justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor joining conservative justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch and Chief Justice John Roberts. Together, they formed the 6-3 majority that invalidated Trump's global tariffs imposed under emergency economic powers.

What Did the 3 Justices Say?

Justice Brett Kavanaugh led one of the dissents, arguing that the tariffs were within presidential powers. Kavanaugh wrote: "The tariffs at issue here may or may not be wise policy. But as a matter of text, history, and precedent, they are clearly lawful," stressing a different reading of the statute.

The ruling left a major financial question unresolved, as importers have already paid billions under Trump global tariffs. Companies such as warehouse chain Costco are pursuing refunds in court. Addressing repayments, Kavanaugh said: "The Court says nothing today about whether, and if so how, the government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers. But that process is likely to be a 'mess,' as was acknowledged at oral argument," signalling possible complex litigation ahead.

Justice Clarence Thomas, also dissenting on Trump global tariffs, maintained that the legal framework supported Trump. Thomas wrote that "neither statutory text nor the Constitution provide a basis for ruling against the President." Thomas added, "The Court has long conveyed to Congress that it may vest the president with large discretion in matters arising out of the execution of statutes relating to trade and commerce with other nations." With the tariffs struck down but repayment issues unresolved, businesses and the US government now face extended legal and financial disputes.