...
By Jesus Mesa
Reporter
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh dissented Thursday after the Supreme Court struck down President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs and warned the majority's ruling could unleash an economic mess the Court did nothing to prepare for.
Kavanaugh, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, pushed back sharply, arguing the Court wasn't just wrong on the law, but had opened the door to immediate disruption. He contended that tariffs are a traditional tool presidents have long used to "regulate...importation," and that the majority's approach contravenes "text, history, and precedent."
"Refunds of billions of dollars would have significant consequences for the U. S. Treasury," Kavanaugh wrote.
Read More on Politics
The Supreme Court, he noted, "says nothing today about whether, and if so how, the Government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers"—a process he said was likely to be a "mess," a word used during oral argument.
Why It Matters
In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the President to impose tariffs, gutting a cornerstone of Trump's economic agenda. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority, joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Barrett, and Jackson.
The Treasury had collected more than $133 billion from the import taxes the president imposed under the emergency powers law as of December, federal data shows.
What To Know
The cases — Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc. — were brought by small businesses and 12 states challenging tariffs that included a 25 percent duty on Canadian and Mexican imports and levies on Chinese goods that escalated to 145 percent.
The ruling does not bar Trump from imposing tariffs under other statutes. Top administration officials have said they expect to maintain the tariff framework under separate legal authorities.
Kavanaugh also warned the decision could destabilize existing trade agreements. Because IEEPA tariffs had "helped facilitate trade deals worth trillions of dollars — including with foreign nations from China to the United Kingdom to Japan," he wrote, the ruling "could generate uncertainty regarding various trade agreements. That process, too, could be difficult."
...
Many companies, including Costco, have already lined up in lower courts to demand refunds.
Kavanaugh argued the majority created an illogical distinction — the Court acknowledged IEEPA lets the president block all imports through quotas or embargoes, yet ruled he cannot impose even a minimal tariff. "As they interpret the statute, the President could, for example, block all imports from China but cannot order even a $1 tariff on goods imported from China," he wrote.
The six-justice majority was itself divided in its reasoning — three justices rejected the tariffs on straight statutory grounds while three others relied on the major questions doctrine, a point Kavanaugh said weakened the force of the ruling.
Presidents had invoked IEEPA more than 70 times since 1977 — from the aftermath of September 11 to confrontations with Iran and North Korea — a history Kavanaugh said made this case "dramatically different" from past major questions cases where the Court ruled against the government.
Read More: DHS Confirms ICE Agent Fatally Shot US Citizen in 2025 - Newsweek
What People Are Saying
Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, said in a statement: "With today’s Supreme Court ruling affirming the illegality of President Trump’s emergency tariffs, the country will now be about $2 trillion deeper in the hole. With the national debt already the size of the entire U.S. economy and interest on the debt costing more than $1 trillion this year, this is very bad news. Congress should work quickly to fill that hole."
Mark Chenoweth, President of the NCLA, said: “Today the Supreme Court agreed with NCLA by holding that no president can unilaterally raise taxes on Americans. The Court recognized that American importers pay tariffs. They are not taxes somehow imposed on foreign states.”
U.S. Representative Don Bacon, a Nebraska Republican and critic of President Donald Trump, said: "The Constitution’s checks and balances still work. Article One gives tariff authority to Congress."
Lisa Graves, co-founder of Court Accountability, leading expert on the right-wing legal movement, said in a statement: “The Roberts Court has handed Donald Trump a convenient political off-ramp from his disastrous tariff policy that is raising prices, wreaking havoc on the American economy, and cratering his economic approval ahead of the midterms. The decision confirms what should never have been in question: Trump lacks the constitutional authority to unilaterally impose sweeping tariffs, a power the Constitution explicitly delegates to Congress. This ruling is not judicial courage. This is the Roberts Court doing the bare minimum to rein in Trump’s abuse of power while conveniently providing a political lifeline to shield Republicans from electoral ruin.”
What Happens Next
The ruling does not prevent Trump from imposing tariffs under other laws. Although those laws place more limits on how quickly and how broadly tariffs can be applied, senior administration officials said they expect to maintain the overall tariff framework using other legal authorities.
Update 2/20/26, 11:26 a.m. ET: This article was updated with additional information.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines