Supreme Court DROPS BOMBSHELL: Trump's Tariffs Declared FLAT-OUT ILLEGAL – Billions in Refunds Loom

𝘚𝘶𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘦 𝘊𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘵 𝘳𝘶𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱'𝘴 𝘐𝘌𝘌𝘗𝘈 𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘴 𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘭 (6-3), 𝘪𝘯𝘷𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘮𝘢𝘫𝘰𝘳 𝘥𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴, 𝘱𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘴, 𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘤 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘧 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘶𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘴, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘯𝘦𝘸 𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘴 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘸.

𝗔𝗻𝗮𝗹𝘆𝘀𝗶𝘀: Bruce Alpine.

T

he U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump that President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) were illegal. 

 The Court, led by Chief Justice John Roberts (joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson, Gorsuch, and Barrett), held that IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs, as this power belongs to Congress under the Constitution. 

Tariffs are taxes on imports, and the law's language allowing regulation of "importation" does not extend to levying duties of unlimited scope, amount, or duration. 

This decision invalidates the bulk of Trump's 2025 tariffs, including those tied to declared emergencies over drug trafficking (e.g., 25% on Canadian/Mexican goods, 10% on Chinese) and trade deficits (a baseline 10%+ on most global imports, with higher rates on specific nations). 

These measures, often called "Liberation Day" tariffs, collected an estimated $130–160 billion (some sources suggest up to $200 billion) since implementation. 

Immediate repercussions include potential refunds to importers, who paid these duties. 

Lower courts, such as the U.S. Court of International Trade, must now address remedies, potentially requiring the government to repay billions—creating fiscal strain and administrative chaos. 

file: Bruce Alpine

Businesses that passed costs to consumers might seek reimbursements, though complexities arise if prices were already absorbed downstream. 

Economically, removing these tariffs could lower costs for U.S. manufacturers and consumers reliant on imports, easing inflation pressures from higher goods prices (one estimate suggested average households lost ~$1,750 annually). 

However, it disrupts Trump's trade strategy, which used tariffs as leverage against countries like China, Mexico, and Canada to address deficits, supply chains, and drug flows. 

Politically, the ruling is a major setback for Trump, crossing ideological lines and reinforcing congressional authority over trade. 

Trump denounced it as "deeply disappointing," calling some justices "unpatriotic," "disloyal," and a "disgrace." 

In response, he vowed to impose a new temporary 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act, an alternative authority for addressing balance-of-payments issues (though more limited and time-bound). 

Broader implications include uncertainty in global trade relations—potentially straining deals negotiated via tariff threats—and possible fresh legal challenges to any new measures.

Dissenters (Justices Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh) warned of a "mess," including refund logistics and trade agreement instability. 

While not all tariffs (e.g., those under other statutes like Section 232 national security) are affected, the decision curbs executive overreach in economic policy, signaling limits on emergency powers for trade actions. 

Overall, the ruling shifts tariff policy back toward Congress, curbs unilateral presidential authority, and forces the administration to pivot—amid ongoing debates over U.S. trade deficits and protectionism. 

Effects will unfold as refunds process and new proposals face scrutiny, influencing economic growth, consumer prices, and international relations in the months ahead.

—