President Donald Trump announced yesterday an additional 10 percent tariff on imports into the United States, a move that comes just after the Supreme Court struck down several of his broad and often unpredictable trade duties. The ruling was seen as a major rebuke to one of his hallmark economic strategies.
Trump signed the new tariff order in the Oval Office and posted on social media that it would be “effective almost immediately.” Over the past year, he had frequently used sudden tariffs to pressure or punish countries, both allies and adversaries.
The Supreme Court, in a six-to-three decision, ruled that a 1977 law previously cited by Trump does not grant the President unilateral authority to impose such tariffs. The decision was especially notable because it involved two justices Trump himself had nominated.
“I’m ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed, for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country,” Trump told reporters. Despite the setback, he insisted the ruling made him “more powerful” and claimed it allowed him to implement tariffs by other methods.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told the Economic Club of Dallas that the alternative method for imposing tariffs would “result in virtually unchanged tariff revenue in 2026.”
Major Setback for Trump’s Trade Agenda
While the decision does not affect sector-specific tariffs on steel, aluminum, and other goods, it marks Trump’s largest Supreme Court defeat since returning to the White House 13 months ago. Previously, the court had often sided with him, including a 2024 ruling that he was immune from prosecution for “official acts” during his first term.
Chief Justice John Roberts, in the opinion, stated that if Congress had intended to give the President the power to impose tariffs through the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), it would have done so explicitly. “IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties,” Roberts said.
Wall Street reacted with modest gains following the ruling, which had been widely anticipated. Business groups, including the National Retail Federation, welcomed the clarity it provided for companies navigating the uncertainty of trade policies.
Questions Remain About Refunds
The administration argued in court that companies would be entitled to refunds for any unlawful tariffs, but the decision did not settle this issue. Trump acknowledged that litigation could stretch on for years over refunds. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the only Trump nominee to side with him, warned the process “could be a mess.”
Analysts at the University of Pennsylvania’s Penn Wharton Budget Model estimate the decision could generate up to $175 billion in refunds. California Governor Gavin Newsom emphasized the need for Americans to reclaim “every dollar unlawfully taken – with interest.” Meanwhile, Senator Elizabeth Warren noted that no legal pathway currently exists for many consumers and small businesses to recover the money already spent.
The Budget Lab at Yale University reported that effective tariff rates for consumers dropped to 9.1 percent following Friday’s decision, down from 16.9 percent, but still the highest since 1946, excluding 2025.
Internationally, close US trading partners such as the European Union, Britain, Canada, and India are assessing the decision’s implications. Trump said existing trade agreements, particularly with India, are likely to continue. Canada, which has repeatedly faced tariff threats, described the levies as “unjustified” but braced for potential new trade pressures.
While the Supreme Court ruling may have curtailed one of Trump’s economic tools, it’s clear that global trade tensions are far from over. At the end of the day, the real impact will be felt by everyday Americans and businesses navigating an uncertain economic landscape—reminding us that trade policies don’t just shape markets, they touch lives.
