Supreme Court Rules Against Most of President Trump’s Tariffs

New York—The Supreme Court has ruled that President Donald Trump exceeded his authority when imposing sweeping tariffs beginning last year.

In a 6-3 decision, the justices stated that Trump’s tariffs were not permitted under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law that was intended to be used in case of national emergencies.

The conservative-heavy court has sided with Trump several times in recent decisions, including those on immigration and government spending, but took a rare stance in opposition to the president when it came to tariffs.

Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative justice, authored the majority opinion, and was joined by the three liberal justices—Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—and two fellow conservatives, Justices Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett.

Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Brett Kavanaugh, all conservatives, dissented.

When Congress delegated tariff powers, it did so “in explicit terms and subject to strict limits,” wrote Roberts.

The government’s interpretation that IEEPA gives the president the power to universally impose and change tariffs at will represents “a transformative expansion of the President’s authority over tariff policy,” he wrote.

“It is also telling that in IEEPA’s half century of existence, no president has invoked the statute to impose any tariffs, let alone tariffs of this magnitude and scope,” wrote Roberts.

“That ‘lack of historical precedent,’ coupled with the breadth of authority that the President now claims, suggests that the tariffs extend beyond the President’s ‘legitimate reach.’”

In the dissenting opinion, Kavanaugh argued that IEEPA “empowers the president to regulate imports during national emergencies with the tools presidents have traditionally and commonly used, including quotas, embargoes, and tariffs,” citing statutory text, history, and precedent.

In a White House briefing Friday, President Trump called the Supreme Court’s ruling “deeply disappointing.” 

He also hinted at further legislation to come, stating that those “dancing in the streets” over this decision won’t be dancing for long.

The case was heard in November, with the long-awaited decision published Friday morning.

Following the release of the ruling, Jewelers of America President and CEO David Bonaparte said the decision should bring “significant relief” to business and their customers, though it does not mean tariffs will cease to be an issue.

“While the landscape has been significantly altered by the court’s decision, we expect tariffs to remain a top concern for businesses as the administration has stated it will seek other options for implementing tariffs if the court ruled against them,” he said.

“Jewelers of America will continue to press Congress and the Trump administration to exclude any new tariffs on jewelry products that cannot be sourced in the U.S.”

In an alert sent to its members Friday afternoon, the Jewelers Vigilance Committee outlined what the Supreme Court’s ruling means and how it could affect the jewelry industry, also noting that tariffs are not going away.

JVC pointed out that the court’s decision only affects the tariffs that were passed using IEEPA, including the “reciprocal” tariffs that vary country by country. It does not affect those passed under different laws, like the steel and aluminum tariffs.

While it is likely the government will stop collecting IEEPA tariffs, it is not clear when that will happen, JVC said.

This decision also does not necessarily mean these tariffs are permanently eliminated.

While the ruling means that IEEPA cannot be used on its own to impose tariffs, there are other ways for tariffs to be implemented, such as other statutory authorities or by traditional trade legislation passed by Congress.

“The government is likely to re-enact similar tariffs very quickly using the other statutory authorities available to it,” JVC said.

“While this would mean there could be more notice and limitations on the tariff power, we do not yet know how this will play out.”

The court’s majority opinion did not address what would happen to the billions of dollars in tariffs already paid, nor did it mention the issue of refunds.

In the dissenting opinion, Kavanaugh noted that because of this decision, the U.S. government may be required to refund billions of dollars to those who paid the tariffs. The refund process is “likely to be a mess,” he wrote.

Several retailers, including Costco, have sued for refunds of tariffs paid under IEEPA.

“A legal victory is meaningless without actual relief for the businesses that paid these tariffs,” We Pay the Tariffs, a grassroots coalition of business owners in opposition to the tariffs, said in a statement issued Friday.

The group is calling for a fast and efficient refund process.

“Small businesses cannot afford to wait months or years while bureaucratic delays play out, nor can they afford expensive litigation just to recover money that was unlawfully collected from them in the first place,” said the group.

In the meantime, JVC shared some tips on what members of the jewelry industry should do now.

The organization advised monitoring developments closely as there may be short-term uncertainties as federal agencies decide what to do next.

It also advised that business owners stay in contact with their customs brokers and trade counsel regarding imports of jewelry, gemstones, precious metals, and related goods.

They also should refrain from making any immediate changes to sourcing until clearer guidance is given, said JVC.

Friday’s Supreme Court decision is the second bit of tariff relief announced in recent weeks.

At the beginning of the month, Trump announced that a trade deal has been reached with India, whose imports have been taxed at 50 percent since August 2025. 

The deal, which is still being negotiated, would drop the tariff on loose natural diamonds and colored gemstones to 0 percent. 

The import tax on finished diamond jewelry, colored gemstone jewelry, cultured pearls, and lab-grown diamonds would be 18 percent.