The United States has entered a new phase of trade tensions after President Donald Trump announced a 10% global tariff, replacing a set of duties recently struck down by the Supreme Court of the United States.
The move comes days after the court ruled, in a 6–3 decision, that the president had exceeded his authority in imposing sweeping tariffs under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The justices concluded that Congress had not explicitly granted the executive branch the power to introduce such broad-based import taxes.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, emphasized that when Congress delegates tariff authority, it does so clearly and with defined limits. The ruling was supported by the court’s three liberal justices, along with conservative justices Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch. Justices Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and Samuel Alito dissented.
A legal setback, but not the end
The invalidated tariffs, first introduced last year, had targeted goods from dozens of countries, initially focusing on Mexico, Canada and China before expanding globally. The White House had justified the measures as an emergency response to trade imbalances.
Following the ruling, President Trump sharply criticized the decision and signaled that refunds of previously collected duties—estimated at over $130bn—would likely be contested in court for years. He maintained that alternative legal pathways exist to preserve his trade agenda.
Within hours, the administration invoked Section 122 of federal trade law, a rarely used provision allowing tariffs of up to 15% for 150 days without prior congressional approval. The new 10% levy is set to take effect on 24 February.
Certain goods—including selected minerals, pharmaceuticals, electronics, vehicles and some agricultural products—are exempt. Canada and Mexico will retain exemptions under the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA).
Business relief and uncertainty
Markets reacted positively to the court’s decision, with the S&P 500 closing up roughly 0.7%. Many businesses welcomed the ruling, describing it as a temporary reprieve from elevated import costs.
However, uncertainty remains. Legal experts note that the Supreme Court decision did not explicitly outline a refund mechanism, potentially leaving the matter to the Court of International Trade. For smaller firms, prolonged litigation could complicate efforts to recover funds.
Several major companies—including Costco, Alcoa and food importer Bumble Bee—have already filed lawsuits seeking reimbursement.
International reaction
Global responses have been cautious. The European Commission said it was reviewing the implications of both the ruling and the new tariffs. French President Emmanuel Macron described the judgment as an example of democratic checks and balances, while affirming France’s intention to continue exporting to the US market.
Analysts expect the administration to consider additional trade tools, such as Sections 232 and 301, which allow tariffs linked to national security and unfair trade practices. Those measures, including sector-specific tariffs on steel, aluminium and automobiles, were not affected by the court’s decision.
While the ruling represents a significant challenge to President Trump’s trade strategy, it does not signal an immediate end to tariff-based policy. Instead, it marks the beginning of a more complex legal and economic contest, with potential long-term implications for global commerce.
Be the first to leave a comment