The Supreme Court delivered a major blow to the administration’s trade agenda on Friday, ruling 6–3 that President Donald Trump exceeded his authority by imposing broad tariffs without clear backing from Congress. The high court’s decision specifically targeted the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), stating that the law’s language regarding the regulation of imports does not grant the president the “extraordinary power” to levy duties on his own.
The legal battle stems from a series of trade penalties initiated in February against China, Mexico, and Canada, which the president linked to the fentanyl crisis. Those measures were followed by “Liberation Day” penalties in April, which established a baseline 10% tariff on imports.
While the administration argued these moves were necessary for national security and economic stability, the court sided with lower rulings that had already halted the policy, finding that the power to tax and set duties remains an Article I power belonging to Congress.
Reacting to the decision on Newsmax’s “The Record with Greta Van Susteren,” legal expert and Harvard Law School professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz argued that the president’s legal team essentially backed themselves into a corner. RELATED: Trump Pivots To New Legal Strategy For 10% Global Tariffs After Supreme Court Setback
“I thought that the lawyers for Trump made the wrong argument to the Supreme Court, and I predicted they were going to lose based on their argument. Look, if you argue that it’s fundraising activity by Congress, of course you’re going to lose,” Dershowitz said. “This, the Article One of the Constitution, says that duties and taxes can be imposed only by Congress, and Congress can delegate that authority to the president.”
Dershowitz pointed out a different path the administration could have taken, suggesting that if the tariffs had been framed strictly as a tool of diplomacy or a means to prevent armed conflict, they might have fallen under the president’s Article II powers.
He noted that while the president cannot simply impose taxes to raise revenue without a nod from Congress, the use of tariffs as a “military and diplomatic weapon” remains a potential loophole. In his view, the administration could still utilize these penalties.
“It becomes within the president’s power, and I think he can still do it within limits. There are things he can’t do,” Dershowitz said. “He can’t tax or impose a duty without congressional delegation, but he can use the tariff as a foreign policy and military and diplomatic weapon.”
This ruling effectively upholds an August decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
For now, the decision places the ball back in the administration’s court, requiring them to either seek specific legislative approval for future duties or fundamentally shift their legal justification to emphasize national security and war prevention over trade regulation.
Add the Tampa Free Press as a preferred source on Google
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox
