After the US Supreme Court on Friday struck down sweeping tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump, the White House announced the end of certain duties enacted under a law used to address national emergencies.
The White House said those tariffs “shall no longer be in effect and, as soon as practicable, shall no longer be collected.”
Undeterred by the Supreme Court ruling, Trump said later on Friday in a post on his Truth Social platform that he had the “Great Honor” to sign an order imposing temporary 10% tariffs on global imports to be “effective almost immediately.”
The move comes after the conservative-majority Supreme Court said the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which Trump had originally used to impose tariffs, “does not authorize the president to impose tariffs.”
The new 10% tariff is scheduled to go into effect at 12:01 a.m. Tuesday (0601 Wednesday UTC/GMT) and can initially last 150 days.
The White House said the new import duty will not apply to certain food products and to important minerals or goods already subject to separate tariffs that remain in place after the top court’s ruling.
The court’s decision upholds a lower court ruling from May that found Trump had overstepped his authority by unilaterally declaring punitive and “reciprocal” tariffs. The government had appealed the lower court ruling.
Trump has routinely levied or threatened to levy such penalties on trading partners for a host of reasons ranging from vague claims of unfair treatment to attempting to influence foreign courts to help his political allies abroad. The US Constitution gives Congress the sole power to levy tariffs.
Though other presidents have made ample use of the IEEPA, often to impose sanctions, Trump is the first president to use it for import taxes.
In Friday’s majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts declared, “The Framers [of the US Constitution] did not vest any part of the taxing power in the Executive Branch.”
The court found that, “had Congress intended to convey the distinct and extraordinary power to impose tariffs” with IEEPA, “it would have done so expressly, as it consistently has in other tariff statutes.”
In a statement put out after news of the decision broke, Canadian Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Candace Laing called it a legal ruling, not a policy reset, adding, “Canada should prepare for new, blunter mechanisms to be used to reassert trade pressure, potentially with broader and more disruptive effects.”
Hours after the news broke, Trump called the decision “deeply disappointing” and directed his ire at those justices who voted against his tariff authority.
“I’m ashamed of certain members of the court for not having the courage to do what’s right,” he said, labeling those who voted against his power to unilaterally levy tariffs a “disgrace to the nation.”
Trump appointed three justices to the Supreme Court in his first term, only Justice Brett Kavanaugh voted in his favor, while Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch were part of the majority.
Trump later called the two a “embarrassment to their families” without going so far as to say that he regretted having appointed them.
He then maligned the court’s liberal justices as “unpatriotic” and anti-American.
After claiming that the court was under the sway of foreign influences and threatening investigations, Trump said foreign countries are “dancing in the streets [over the decision], but they won’t be dancing for long.”
He said many more measures are in the works and brushed off a question about the need to consult Congress moving forward, saying: “I don’t have to. I have the right to do tariffs, and I’ve always had the right to do tariffs,” seemingly ignoring the court’s decision.
When asked if the decision would result in even higher tariffs, Trump said, “possibly.”
Friday’s decision, which saw conservative Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh dissenting, marked the first time the Supreme Court has taken steps to rein in Trump’s executive authority.
Writing the dissent, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said Friday’s decision “is not likely to greatly restrict presidential tariff authority going forward.”
Trump had been outspoken about the case before Friday, warning that striking down his ability to levy tariffs would be an economic body blow to the country.
The Congressional Budget Office previously released projections estimating the tariffs would generate $3 trillion (€2.54 trillion) in revenue over the next decade.
In December, the US Treasury claimed to have collected some $133 billion in tariff revenue.
Despite these claims, Trump’s tariff policy remains unpopular with US taxpayers and businesses.
Though Friday’s decision will keep Trump from applying tariffs under the IEEPA, administration officials say they expect the tariff framework to remain in place under other authorities.
The administration has argued that the tariffs are paid by ill-behaved trading partners, but experts say US consumers and businesses are bearing the brunt of the economic hit.
Ahead of Friday’s Supreme Court decision, companies such as Costco insisted they deserve a refund for the losses they have incurred as a result of the president’s policies.
In his dissent, Kavanaugh wrote, “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.”
US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the Supreme Court has taken away Trump’s leverage with its decision.
“The Supreme Court has taken away the president’s leverage, but in a way, they have made the leverage that he has more draconian because they agreed he does have the right to a full embargo,” Bessent told “The Will Cain Show” on Fox News.
“We will get back to the same tariff level for the countries. It will just be in a less direct and slightly more convoluted manner,” he said.
Bessent also stressed that he believed every country was going to honor the trade agreements made with the Trump administration over the last year.
“He (Trump) has a right to a complete embargo, he can just cut countries off … or he can cut whole product lines off. We can’t receive any money. So, I would call on all countries to honor their agreements and move forward,” Bessent underlined.
Reacting to the decision, EU Trade & Economic Security spokesman Olof Gil wrote on X, “Businesses on both sides of the Atlantic depend on stability and predictability in the trading relationship. We therefore continue to advocate for low tariffs and to work towards reducing them.”
As a result of US badgering, the EU and other US trading partners have shifted alliances away from Washington, instead signing extensive trade agreements with China and India, for instance, in pursuit of economic cooperation.
Jürgen Hardt, politician and foreign policy spokesperson for Germany’s governing Christian Democrats (CDU), told DW that it’s “too early to judge” on whether the Supreme Court ruling will lead to any meaningful change in the Trump administration’s conduct of trade relations.
Hardt believes Trump will have to weigh the consequences of his politics carefully until the US midterm elections later this year.
The German parliamentarian also expressed hope that the latest development could provide fresh momentum for trade negotiations between the US and the European Union. “I think we also have to think about what is the consequence for us, maybe a new momentum in trade negotiations with the US and also new momentum for some parts of the business,” he stressed.
Agathe Demarais, a senior policy adviser at the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR), told DW she expects the Trump administration to pursue other avenues to keep tariffs in place, while at the same time emphasizing that they have failed to deliver the economic boost the president claimed they would when he introduced them.
“For starters, the US goods trade deficit grew by 2.1%, to $1.23 trillion last year — an all-time record. Far from shrinking, US imports grew by 4.5% (or $145 billion)” in 2025, she said.
“As to who pays for tariffs,” said Demarais, “the data are unambiguous: According to a recent paper from the Kiel Institute, which analyzed over 25 million shipments worth nearly $4 trillion, US firms and consumers bear 96% of tariff costs — not foreign exporters. New York Fed data confirm this analysis, putting tariff pass-through at more than 90% on average.” – DW.
