WASHINGTON\u00a0\u2014\u00a0The Supreme Court ruled Friday that President Trump\u2019s sweeping worldwide tariffs are illegal and cannot stand without the approval of Congress.<\/p>\n
The 6-3 decision<\/a> deals Trump his most significant defeat at the Supreme Court. <\/p>\n Last year, the justices issued temporary orders to block several of his initiatives, but Friday\u2019s ruling is the first to hold that the president overstepped his legal authority. <\/p>\n Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., speaking for the court, said Congress has the power to impose taxes and tariffs, and lawmakers did not do so in an emergency law that does not mention tariffs. <\/p>\n \u201cThe President asserts the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope. In light of the breadth, history, and constitutional context of that asserted authority, he must identify clear congressional authorization to exercise it,\u201d he wrote in Learning Resources vs. Trump. <\/p>\n \u201cAnd until now no President has read the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to confer such power. We claim no special competence in matters of economics or foreign affairs. We claim only, as we must, the limited role assigned to us by Article III of the Constitution. Fulfilling that role, we hold that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs,\u201d Roberts wrote.<\/p>\n The court\u2019s three liberals \u2014 Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson \u2014 joined the majority, along with two of Trump\u2019s appointees \u2014 Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett. <\/p>\n In a 46-page concurrence, Gorsuch stressed the primary role of Congress.<\/p>\n \u201cThe Constitution lodges the Nation\u2019s lawmaking powers in Congress alone,\u201d he said. \u201cWhatever else might be said about Congress\u2019s work in IEEPA, it did not clearly surrender to the President the sweeping tariff power he seeks to wield.\u201d<\/p>\n Justices Brett M. Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito dissented. <\/p>\n Kavanaugh said he read the 1977 law as allowing tariffs as one means to \u201cregulate … importation,\u201d quoting the law.<\/p>\n \u201cLike quotas and embargoes, tariffs are a traditional and common tool to regulate importation,\u201d he wrote in a 63-page dissent. <\/p>\n Seven of the nine justices \u2014 all but Alito and Sotomayor \u2014 wrote opinions for the majority or dissent that covered 164 pages in total. <\/p>\n In response to Friday\u2019s ruling, Trump is likely to seek tariffs under other laws that include more restrictions. <\/p>\n The justices did not decide on how people and companies may seek refunds for the illegal tariffs they paid. <\/p>\n Ilya Somin, a constitutional scholar at the libertarian Cato Institute, called the decision \u201ca major victory for the constitutional separation of powers, for free trade, and for the millions of American consumers and businesses enduring the higher taxes and higher prices as a result of these tariffs.\u201d<\/p>\n Trump claimed his new and ever-shifting tariffs would bring in trillions of dollars in revenue for the government and encourage more manufacturing in the United States. <\/p>\n But manufacturing employment has gone down over the past year, in part because American companies have been hurt by higher costs for parts that they import. <\/p>\n Critics said the new taxes hurt small businesses in particular and raised prices for American consumers.<\/p>\n The justices focused on the president\u2019s claimed legal authority to impose tariffs as responses to an international economic emergency.<\/p>\n Several owners of small businesses sued last year to challenge Trump\u2019s import taxes as illegal and disruptive. <\/p>\n