Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump Tariffs; President Retaliates with 10% Levy

The U.S. Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision to curb the executive branch's unilateral tariff-setting authority marks a watershed moment in American trade law, effectively dismantling the primary tool of President Donald Trump’s economic agenda. By ruling that the President lacks the inherent power to impose broad global tariffs without specific Congressional authorization or a more rigorous adherence to existing statutes, the Court has not only upended current trade policy but has also cast a shadow of uncertainty over $175 billion in duties already collected from U.S. importers. This judicial intervention represents a significant reassertion of Article I powers, signaling that the era of trade-by-proclamation may be facing its most serious constitutional challenge yet.

The immediate aftermath of the ruling was characterized by a chaotic pivot from the White House. Within hours of the decision, President Trump issued a scathing rebuke of the judiciary, labeling the ruling "ridiculous" and "unpatriotic." However, the administration quickly sought a workaround, invoking a different legal mechanism that allows for a temporary levy of up to 15% for a duration of 150 days. By setting this new tariff at 10% across nearly all import categories—with narrow exemptions for critical minerals and energy—the President is testing the limits of his remaining executive reach while signaling to global markets that the trade war is far from over. This move appears designed to maintain leverage in ongoing diplomatic negotiations, even as the legal ground beneath those negotiations shifts.

“

That enthusiasm quickly evaporated as the reality of the new 10% levy and the potential for prolonged legal battles set in.

For financial markets, the ruling initially provided a spark of optimism, with major U.S. indices surging on the prospect of reduced trade barriers. That enthusiasm quickly evaporated as the reality of the new 10% levy and the potential for prolonged legal battles set in. Analysts suggest that the 150-day clock creates a new type of volatility; businesses must now navigate a landscape where trade costs could fluctuate wildly every five months depending on executive proclamations and subsequent court challenges. The $175 billion already collected remains the most significant "known unknown," as the ruling suggests these funds may have been seized under an incorrect interpretation of the law, potentially opening the door for massive class-action lawsuits from American corporations seeking refunds from the Treasury.

The geopolitical ramifications are equally profound. For the past year, the threat of unilateral tariffs has been the cornerstone of the administration's leverage-based diplomacy. With the Supreme Court effectively removing the permanent nature of this threat, foreign governments may feel emboldened to resist U.S. demands or simply wait out the 150-day temporary windows. Trump’s assertion that foreign leaders were "dancing in the street" reflects the administration's fear that its primary negotiating hammer has been replaced by a much smaller, more restricted mallet. This could lead to a stalling of current trade talks as partners reassess the President's ability to follow through on threats.

Looking ahead, the focus shifts to the inevitable legal challenges against the new 10% proclamation. While the law cited by the White House provides a clearer statutory basis for short-term levies, the Supreme Court’s majority opinion suggests a growing judicial skepticism toward broad executive claims of economic emergency. Investors should prepare for a period of regulatory whiplash, where trade policy is dictated not by long-term strategy, but by a cycle of executive orders and judicial stays. The exemptions for critical minerals and energy products offer some relief to the tech and utility sectors, but the broader manufacturing and retail sectors remain firmly in the crosshairs of this escalating constitutional and economic conflict.