The U.S. Supreme Court ruled by a vote of six to three that existing regulations did not authorize the U.S. president to impose global tariffs. In response, Donald Trump harshly criticized the justices and utilized other legal provisions, raising the import levy rate to a maximum of 15 percent within just a day. This decision raises concerns among international trading partners.

Historic Nullification of Tariffs

The U.S. Supreme Court decisively challenged the president's authority to use IEEPA provisions, dismantling the foundation of the government's previous protectionist policy.

Unexpected Tariff Escalation

After initially announcing ten percent replacement fees, the president decided to quickly utilize the maximum permitted threshold of 15 percent for 150 days.

Protests from Trading Partners

Representatives of Asian nations and Australian authorities openly risk escalating relations with the superpower, working to counter unexpected shocks to supply chains.

The Supreme Court of the United States struck at the foundations of the Washington administration's economic policy. By a vote of six to three, the justices ruled that the IEEPA act does not authorize the president to impose tariffs, and therefore, introducing trade barriers without explicit congressional consent exceeded the executive branch's authority. This ruling was intended to stabilize the superpower's relations with foreign allies but produced the exact opposite effect. The furious leader called the tribunal members fools and swiftly proceeded with retaliatory actions. The principle of separation of powers in the U.S. political system is based on the system of checks and balances created in 1787. The Founding Fathers deliberately separated powers to prevent the concentration of authority. Serious jurisdictional disputes between the White House and the Supreme Court occur regularly, especially when the executive branch broadly interprets the law during periods of economic crisis.The White House immediately turned to regulations passed in the 1970s. The Trade Act served as the legal basis for the new presidential directives. Within just a few dozen hours, Washington witnessed extremely dynamic shifts in tariff policy.Chronology of the Weekend Legal Battle: February 20 — Critical Tribunal Ruling; February 20 — Ten Percent Decree; February 21 — Maximization of Protectionism„I am ashamed of certain members of the court, I am deeply ashamed that they do not have the courage to do what is right for our country.” — Donald TrumpThe Oval Office's decisive about-face immediately shook the capitals of free-trading nations, causing operational uncertainty. Media reports indicate that broad exemptions covered the pharmaceutical industry and selected machinery products, but the list of exemptions also includes energy resources, agricultural products, and key technological components. The trade minister representing the Australian federal authorities sharply stated that the government firmly opposes so-called "unjustified tariffs" and is analyzing all possible options to protect the domestic economy. Similar concerns are voiced by Asian markets. From a domestic perspective, the situation is leading the economy towards significant claims, as tariffs previously collected based on the decision rejected by the tribunal may now be subject to mass refunds from the federal treasury.

Mentioned People

  • Donald Trump — President of the United States, who announced the introduction of new tariffs and attacked the Supreme Court.
  • Don Farrell — Australian trade minister opposing unjustified tariffs from the United States.
  • Susan Rice — Former U.S. government official, currently a board member of a streaming platform called upon to be dismissed.