Trump Lashes Out at Supreme Court Justices After Landmark Ruling Strikes Down His Sweeping Tariffs
Washington, D.C. – In a stunning rebuke to presidential authority, the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday struck down most of President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs, ruling 6-3 that they exceeded powers granted under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The decision prompted immediate backlash from Trump, who took to social media to slam the justices as “overreaching activists” undermining America’s economic sovereignty.[1][2]
A Fractured Ruling on Presidential Power
Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, a case challenging tariffs imposed via executive orders under IEEPA, a 1977 law allowing the president to regulate commerce during national emergencies posed by foreign threats. The court held that IEEPA’s language – specifically “regulate … importation” – does not authorize tariffs, which Roberts described as a core taxing power reserved primarily for Congress.[1][2][3]
“Based on two words separated by 16 others in … IEEPA—‘regulate’ and ‘importation’—the President asserts the independent power to impose tariffs on imports from any country, of any product, at any rate, for any amount of time,” Roberts wrote, warning that such an interpretation would grant the president “unbounded tariffs” unconstrained by congressional tariff statutes.[2]
The ruling invoked the **major questions doctrine**, requiring clear statutory authorization for executive actions of vast economic significance. The court rejected arguments for exceptions based on emergencies or foreign affairs, noting no president had used IEEPA for tariffs in 50 years – a lack of precedent deemed telling against the administration’s position.[1]
Trump’s Fiery Response Ignites Debate
Hours after the ruling, Trump unleashed a torrent of criticism on Truth Social, his preferred platform. “The so-called Supreme Court just handed our enemies a huge win by killing American tariffs that protected our workers and brought in billions. These justices are weak on China and trade – total disaster!” he posted, tagging several conservative justices and accusing them of betraying his “America First” agenda.[1]
Trump singled out Chief Justice Roberts, calling the opinion “a radical left dream come true,” and vowed to fight back through legislation or further executive action. “Congress gave me the power – these robes don’t get to rewrite the law,” he added in a follow-up post that garnered millions of views within hours.
The president’s outburst drew sharp rebukes from legal experts and Democrats. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called it “dangerous rhetoric that erodes faith in our institutions,” while House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Trump ally, urged restraint but praised the court’s nod to congressional primacy on taxes.[2]
Dissenters Defend Broad Executive Authority
The decision was splintered, with Justice Brett Kavanaugh penning a notable dissent joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Kavanaugh argued the **major questions doctrine** supported Trump, citing IEEPA’s text, historical practice, and precedents as evidence of Congress’s intent to grant sweeping tariff powers during emergencies.[2]
“Under the major questions doctrine as the Court has applied it, this should be a straightforward case” for the president, Kavanaugh wrote, rejecting the majority’s view of tariffs as purely revenue-raising taxes rather than regulatory tools on a spectrum between embargoes and quotas.[1][2]
The government had defended the tariffs using a “poles/spectrum” theory, positing “regulate” as a middle ground allowing milder measures like duties. The majority dismissed this outright, emphasizing tariffs’ direct impact on domestic importers.[1]
Economic Ripples and Political Fallout
The tariffs, targeting imports from China and other nations amid trade wars, generated significant revenue but spiked consumer prices and disrupted supply chains. Challengers, including toy importer Learning Resources, Inc., argued they bypassed Congress’s constitutional taxing authority under Article I.[3]
| Aspect | Majority Holding | Dissent Argument |
|---|---|---|
| IEEPA Scope | Does not authorize tariffs as taxing power[1][3] | Allows tariffs as regulatory tool[2] |
| Major Questions Doctrine | Applies; no emergency/foreign affairs exceptions[1] | Supports president via text and history[2] |
| Historical Precedent | 50 years without IEEPA tariffs weighs against[1] | Precedents affirm broad power[2] |
Markets reacted swiftly: The Dow Jones rose 1.2% on expectations of lower import costs, while steel and manufacturing stocks dipped amid uncertainty over future protections.[2] Economists predict the ruling could force Congress to revisit trade policy, potentially reviving bipartisan tariff bills stalled in prior sessions.
Broader Implications for Executive Power
This is the latest in a series of Supreme Court checks on executive overreach. Roberts’ opinion underscores limits on emergency powers post-9/11 expansions, echoing rulings curbing agency actions under the **Chevron** doctrine (overturned last year). Legal scholars see it as reinforcing Congress’s “purse strings” role.[1]
“Such an interpretation would represent a ‘transformative expansion’ of the President’s authority over tariff policy and indeed over the broader economy.”
– Chief Justice John Roberts, majority opinion[2]
As Trump’s second term barrels toward midterm elections, the ruling amplifies tensions within the GOP. Protectionist allies like Sen. Josh Hawley decried it as “judicial activism,” while free-trade Republicans hailed it as a win for constitutional balance.
The White House has not confirmed next steps, but sources indicate Trump may declare new emergencies or push emergency tariff legislation. For now, the decision halts most challenged duties, reshaping U.S. trade for months or years ahead.
This story will be updated as developments unfold.