Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump's IEEPA Tariffs 6-3, Leaving U.S. on the Hook for Up to $175 Billion in Refunds

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion. The law Trump relied on — the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA — "does not authorize the President to impose tariffs," the court ruled, according to CNBC.

The majority noted that Trump's legal position "would represent a transformative expansion of the President's authority over tariff policy." Before Trump, no president had used IEEPA to impose tariffs — let alone tariffs of this scope.

To claim those powers, the court wrote, Trump must "point to clear congressional authorization. He cannot."

The Price Tag

The Penn Wharton Budget Model estimates the U.S. owes importers up to $175 billion in refunds. Trump cited $159 billion in his public statement, according to Just The News. U.S. Customs and Border Protection has already launched a portal where importers can submit refund claims.

Trump Goes After His Own Picks

Trump responded swiftly on Truth Social, calling out Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett by name — both of whom he appointed.

"I 'Love' Justice Neil Gorsuch! He's a really smart and good man, but he voted against me, and our Country, on Tariffs," Trump wrote, per Just The News. He made similar comments about Barrett.

"They were appointed by me, and yet have hurt our Country so badly," Trump added.

He went so far as to say Democrats no longer need to pack the court because Republican-appointed justices are doing it for them — a striking statement from a sitting president about his own judicial picks.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented. Kavanaugh warned the refund process "is likely to be a mess" and predicted the short-term impact "could be substantial."

The Second Punch: Trade Court Ruling

The Court of International Trade piled on the same day.

A three-judge panel sided with 24 states and businesses that challenged Trump's separate 10% global tariff imposed under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, ruling it "unlawful," according to CBS News.

The CIT ruling is narrow. It applies only to two businesses and the state of Washington that were plaintiffs. Ernst & Young trade policy expert Blake Harden told CBS News that "for practical purposes, nothing changes today" for most businesses.

Capital Economics chief North America economist Stephen Brown confirmed the average effective U.S. tariff rate sits at 7.2% — and those tariffs were set to expire at the end of July anyway.

Fox Rothschild trade attorney Lizbeth Levinson warned that the ruling opens the door for more businesses to file suits seeking refunds.

What the Right Gets Right — And What's Being Left Out

Most coverage came from center-left outlets. Here's what that framing misses.

Conservative commentators and Trump allies argue Congress handed the executive branch sweeping trade authorities for decades and barely complained — until Trump actually used them aggressively. The GOP contends that trade deficits are a real national security problem, not manufactured, and that the court is now tying the president's hands on tools Congress itself authorized.

White House spokesman Kush Desai told CBS News: "President Trump has lawfully used the tariff authorities granted to him by Congress to address our balance of payments crisis."

The U.S. ran a $901 billion trade deficit in 2025 — barely moved despite the tariffs, according to CNBC. The tariffs didn't fix the trade deficit. But the question of whether a president should have unilateral power to restructure global trade by executive order is a legitimate constitutional question — and the court said no.

That's a separation-of-powers answer. Congress holds the taxing power.

Trump Doubles Down Anyway

On Sunday, Trump posted on Truth Social that federal agencies "must buy American," according to The Hill — doubling down on economic nationalism even as courts dismantle his tariff architecture.

He also warned that a ruling against him on birthright citizenship would be economically catastrophic: "A negative ruling on Birthright Citizenship, on top of the recent Supreme Court Tariff catastrophe, is not Economically sustainable for the United States of America!"

What This Means for You

If you're a business that paid tariffs under IEEPA, a refund portal is open. Whether you'll see that money quickly is another question.

If you're a taxpayer, the government is potentially cutting $175 billion in checks — money it already spent.

And if you believe Congress should be making trade policy instead of the president — regardless of party — the Supreme Court just agreed with you.