Here’s what President Trump said.
President Donald Trump praises Justice Brett Kavanaugh following a major Supreme Court decision limiting tariff authority.
President Donald Trump is once again at the center of a major Supreme Court development — this time after the high court ruled against his use of emergency tariff powers.
Following the Court’s 6–3 decision restricting presidential authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), Trump publicly praised one justice in particular, calling him his “new hero.”
The ruling has sparked debate over executive power, trade policy, and the future of U.S. tariffs.
What Did the Supreme Court Decide?
The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the president could not use the IEEPA to impose sweeping global tariffs without clearer congressional authorization.
The majority concluded that the statute does not explicitly grant tariff-imposing authority in the way the administration interpreted it.
The decision immediately affects billions of dollars in trade policy and may require administrative adjustments moving forward.
Trump Praises Kavanaugh, Thomas, and Alito
In a Truth Social post the following morning, Trump praised three dissenting justices:
- Brett Kavanaugh
- Clarence Thomas
- Samuel Alito
Trump described Kavanaugh as his “new hero” and expressed confidence in the dissenting justices’ interpretation of presidential authority.
All three voted against the majority opinion.
Inside Kavanaugh’s Dissent
Justice Kavanaugh authored a detailed dissent criticizing what he described as an inconsistent reading of federal law.
He argued that under the majority’s interpretation, a president could block imports entirely from a foreign nation but could not impose even a modest tariff under the same statute — a distinction he said lacked logical consistency.
Kavanaugh maintained that IEEPA allows presidents to regulate imports during declared national emergencies using tools such as:
- Tariffs
- Quotas
- Embargoes
He suggested the statute does not separate these tools in the narrow manner the majority described.
Could Importers Receive Billions in Refunds?
One of the most significant consequences of the ruling may involve financial refunds.
According to Kavanaugh’s dissent, the federal government could be required to return billions of dollars collected under the disputed tariffs.
He also noted potential complications:
- Some importers may have already passed costs on to consumers
- Processing refunds could become administratively complex
- Trade agreements negotiated during this period may face uncertainty
Legal experts expect additional clarification in lower courts and federal agencies in the coming months.
Trump Responds by Raising Global Tariffs
Despite the setback, President Trump moved quickly.
On Saturday, he announced an increase in the global tariff rate from 10% to 15%, this time citing Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 as legal authority.
The move signals that trade policy remains a central pillar of his administration’s economic strategy.
Why This Supreme Court Ruling Matters
This case has broader implications beyond tariffs:
- It defines the limits of presidential emergency powers
- It may shape future trade negotiations
- It impacts global markets and domestic industries
- It raises constitutional questions about executive authority
The decision ensures that the balance of power between Congress and the presidency remains a defining issue in U.S. trade law.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)?
IEEPA is a federal law that allows presidents to regulate economic transactions during declared national emergencies involving foreign threats.
Did the Supreme Court eliminate presidential tariff authority?
No. The Court limited the use of IEEPA for tariffs in this context but noted that other federal statutes may still allow tariff actions.
Could businesses get tariff refunds?
Possibly. Depending on how federal agencies implement the ruling, some importers may seek reimbursement.
Why did Trump praise Justice Kavanaugh?
Trump agreed with Kavanaugh’s dissenting opinion, which argued that the majority misinterpreted the statute.
Final Takeaway
The Supreme Court’s ruling represents a significant moment in the ongoing debate over executive authority and trade policy.
While the Court limited one pathway for tariff implementation, alternative legal avenues remain available. As legal challenges continue and policy adjustments unfold, the issue of presidential trade powers is likely to remain in the national spotlight.
