US Supreme Court blocks Trump tarrifs

Friday’s news from the US Supreme Court that President Trump’s use of tariffs under his use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act was unlawful came as a shock to much of the public, but some economists say they were not surprised, while others say that position might be one of cynicism rather than reality. But, no matter how it is termed, this represents a strong push-back on what has been seen as a legislative acquiescence to the demands of Trump since he began his second term.

“We claim no special competence in matters of economics or foreign affairs,” Roberts elaborated in his 21-page written opinion. “We claim only, as we must, the limited role assigned to us by Article III of the Constitution. Fulfilling that role, we hold that (the International Emergency Economic Powers Act) does not authorize the President to impose tariffs."

Along with immigration, tariffs have been a keystone of his administration, and also a campaign promise that the US would be very rich from them, But taken with tax cuts for the wealthy the lost revenue must be made somehow, and this was a major source of revenue, now compromised.

The blow to importers in the US that paid what is in effect a tax, was in most cases passed onto American consumers, and while some companies stockpiled products ahead of their implementation, many smaller business could not, and many families were paying more than they wanted for them and, on the back of higher grocery prices, and increasing housing costs the president has received increasingly negative poll ratings on his handling of the economy.

To no one’s surprise Trump, in less than five minutes after the 6-3 decision was announced he stated that he would still levy global tariffs. As The Hill reported, “Even so, Trump still has plenty of power to impose new tariffs to replace the old, and he is warning trading partners against celebrating with his critics.”

“Any Country that wants to ‘play games’ with the ridiculous supreme court decision, especially those that have ‘Ripped Off’ the U.S.A. for years, and even decades, will be met with a much higher Tariff, and worse, than that which they just recently agreed to,” Trump wrote Monday in a post on Truth Social.”

“Trump had used the IEEPA to impose tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China soon after taking office last year, claiming those countries had not done enough to stop fentanyl trafficking into the U.S.,” the report added.

In April of last year, on the so-called Liberation Day, Trump’s announcement in the White House Rose Garden, themselves questionable in their calculation brought uncertainty not only to global markets but the aforementioned consumers, and the fallout caused the zigzag pattern of tariffs, on again, then off again, causing as much concern on Wall Street, as well as Main Street.

Now there are calls for refunds from American companies as well as politicians, and state leaders such as Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker who has called for a check to be cut for refunds to Illinoisans.

On Monday, NBC News reported that “FedEx today filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, seeking a “full refund” of all tariffs it paid to the government under the overturned International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

“Accordingly...Plaintiffs seek for themselves a full refund from Defendants of all IEEPA duties Plaintiffs have paid to the United States,” lawyers for FedEx wrote in the lawsuit lodged at the Customs and Border Protection Agency in the United States Court of International Trade.”

Going ahead, the picture looks murky and in the same report from NBC we have “House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., [who] said today that the House was not likely to get on the same page when it comes to legislation on tariffs.

“We have a wide range of opinions on this topic, so I think it’d be difficult to build consensus around it, but we’ll have to see,” Johnson said.

Asked if Congress should take the lead on tariffs now that the Supreme Court has issued a ruling, Johnson said the House would “wait and see what the administration does with the executive authority” regarding tariffs.

“As I’ve said, it may take a couple weeks to sort all this out, given the Supreme Court opinion, so we’ll see,” Johnson said.

According to the Associated Press, “Trump has already signed an executive order enabling him to bypass Congress and impose a 10% tax on global imports, starting on Tuesday, the same day as his State of the Union speech.”

Taking a closer look at Trump’s next move, Yahoo Finance reported, “On Friday, he imposed a "global" tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. That statute allows the president to impose tariffs of up to 15% for up to 150 days to address trade deficits. After 150 days, Congress would need to approve any extension. That authority, however, has never been used to impose tariffs,” and is predicted to be a cumbersome process.

“On Monday, the US Customs and Border Protection agency said that it will stop all collections of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) as of 12:01 a.m. EST on Tuesday. The agency said in a message to shippers on its Cargo Systems Messaging Service that it will deactivate all tariff codes associated with President Trump's IEEPA-related ‌orders.”

Ratification of the US trade deals from last year with the European Union are now pending, waiting for clarification. Yahoo Finance reported, "Tariff rates on goods negotiated separately, such as steel, automobiles, pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, critical minerals, and agricultural products, aren't impacted by the Supreme Court's decision and will remain in place."

In characteristic fashion the president lashed out against those justices that voted against him, and, “calling them “fools and lap dogs” and he suggested that two he had nominated during his first term — Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett — were “an embarrassment to their families” because they didn’t take his side,” according to The New York Times.

While the embattled president engages in his Plan B, according to some on Capitol Hill, he faces this from the NBC/Marist polls: “As of February 2026, a NPR/PBS News/Marist poll shows a record 59% of Americans disapprove of President Trump's handling of the economy, the highest in his terms. Only 36% approve, with 56% believing his tariffs hurt the U.S. economy. Key concerns driving this sentiment include inflation, cost of living, and the potential for a recession. “

Last April the president said that his goal was to even the playing field and force foreign companies to make their products in the United States, but that goal was hardly feasible, with tariff retaliation, and the near impossibility of suddenly reformatting global supply chains, which in the best case scenario could take years, and considerable expense. And, now we see the reality of those lofty goals, failure, rebuttal from the Supreme Court, and anger from those who expected more, and got less.

“The Supreme Court just confirmed what we already know. Trump’s tariffs are illegal. He did it without the support of Congress or the voters, and you paid the price,”  Gov. Pritzker said in a short video posted on the social platform X.

He claimed Trump “illegally took $1,700 from every American family,” a figure that falls within the range cited in Yale Budget Lab research from March of last year, which projected an average household loss of between $1,600 and $2,000 due to the tariffs.

“That’s a tax on working people. Donald Trump now owes you a refund for every dollar of it. America’s working families deserve a refund. Cut the check, Donald,” Pritzker added in a report from The Hill.

Notably, he added, “The governor, who’s been floated as a possible 2028 presidential contender, demanded in an accompanying letter that the president issue refunds of that amount to more than 5.1 million households in Illinois, totaling nearly $8.7 billion.”