President Donald Trump signs an executive order to revoke tariffs that were invalidated by the court.
He announces a new 10% tariff on imports from all nations, effective immediately, layered atop existing tariffs, with certain exemptions like critical minerals, metals, and energy items, as stated by the White House.
The Supreme Court’s decisive 6-3 ruling challenged the authority Trump and his trade representatives claimed to have used to influence foreign relations and global markets through tariffs.
The decision briefly boosted U.S. stock markets, which then hovered with slight gains amid ongoing concerns about global market stability and potential future actions by Trump.
Shortly after the ruling, Trump signed an order to cancel the previously struck-down tariffs and enacted new duties of 10% on most US imports for 150 days, with specific exclusions.
The ruling raised questions about recent trade agreements negotiated under the threat of high tariffs and the $175 billion collected from US importers, which the court indicated may have been collected unlawfully.
Trump criticized the court, expressing shame and accusing some justices of being unpatriotic and swayed by foreign interests, claiming they lacked the courage to do what’s right for the country.
He suggested that, despite the court’s limits on his unilateral powers, there are still other ways to impose tariffs, including invoking emergency powers.
The court emphasized that, absent a national emergency, the president does not have inherent authority to impose tariffs during peacetime, citing the Constitution’s explicit legislative powers.
The decision stunned markets, injecting a new wave of uncertainty into trade policy after a tumultuous year of unpredictable tariff statements.
Analysts predict a return to high tariffs, but with more complexity and less direct control for the presidency, possibly leading to legal challenges in extending tariffs.
Trump invoked Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, allowing tariffs up to 15% for up to 150 days to address international payments issues, though this too could face legal scrutiny.
