The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that President Donald Trump exceeded his constitutional authority by imposing widespread tariffs on imported goods without congressional approval. The decision paves the way for claims by powerful global corporations, which estimate their losses in the single-digit billions of dollars. In response to the rejection of the trade policy by the American judiciary, the US leader immediately announced the introduction of new tariffs at a rate of fifteen percent.

Historic Supreme Court Ruling

The American court ultimately ruled that the imposition of mass tariff fees via executive order was an illegal overreach of the president's constitutional prerogatives.

Corporate Financial Implications

Large corporations of general significance, including powerhouse Apple and Swiss brands, are preparing tax lawsuits aiming to secure billion-dollar compensations.

Retaliation and New Tariffs

The American executive branch ignores officials' calls for normalization and announces with force even tougher tariffs reaching fifteen percent.

International Political Interventions

Representatives of foreign states, especially the government in Berlin and Brazil, following the collapse of the arrangements, demand with cautious smiles the final depolarization of market relations.

The Supreme Court of the United States issued a landmark ruling, rejecting by a vote of six to three the widespread tariffs imposed on global partners by Donald Trump. The presiding justices, most of whom hold a conservative worldview, ruled that the head of state's actions grossly exceeded executive powers, clearly relying on the constitutional authority of the legislative branch to regulate foreign trade relations. Unexpectedly, the case was not brought before the tribunal on behalf of market giants, but by a small toy distributor from Chicago. Entrepreneur Rick Woldenberg, after a prolonged battle, formally stripped the legal basis from the initiative announced last year as the so-called "Day of Liberation." The United States Constitution, since the republic's inception, grants the exclusive mandate to impose necessary national tariffs directly to Congress. Despite the clarity of this assignment, in the late 1970s, a law consolidating exceptional economic powers (IEEPA) emerged, giving successive American presidents a dangerous space and effective tools to expand protectionism by citing vague justifications and loopholes in safeguarding national security. The financial consequences of the sudden elimination of tariffs proved shocking for the global economy. European stock exchanges reacted with an outburst of relief, and large organizations are already meticulously estimating the value of unduly paid contributions to the US government. Experts predict Apple may seek refunds exceeding $3 billion, though the compensation mechanism remains unclear. Meanwhile, Swiss watchmakers like Breitling criticize the tariff burdens but have not yet taken formal legal steps to obtain compensation. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz also demonstrated triumph in the political discourse, claiming it is the only lifeline for the strained condition of EU machinery and raw material exports. 3,3 mld USD — projected refund for Apple corporation Timeline of the Trade Conflict Escalation: April 2, 2025 — Day of Liberation; February 20, 2026 — Court Decision; February 21, 2026 — Swift Retaliation The Republican president decided to pursue a path of total confrontation with the judiciary. Via the controversial site Truth Social, he immediately announced the permanent introduction of an even higher import barrier. However, this image defeat in court came at a critical moment in the political calendar. The notoriously harsh Wall Street Journal published an appeal demanding unconditional government apologies to the nine justices for crude insults against the highest court, and the scandal erupts just days before the crucial annual economic address. Despite lobbying efforts from Vietnam and Africa for restraint, the burden will remain palpable locally. „Zölle sind ein Erpressungsmittel - und 90 Prozent zahlen die Amerikaner selbst.” (Tariffs are a means of extortion - and 90 percent are paid by Americans themselves.) — Sandra Navidi

Mentioned People

  • Donald Trump — President of the United States, author of the rejected tariff regulations impacting imports.
  • Rick Woldenberg — Owner of a small company producing recreational toys in Chicago, who led to the overturning of the executive order in court.
  • Friedrich Merz — Chancellor of Germany publicly praising the relaxation of strict tax barrier policies.
  • Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva — President of Brazil calling on Washington for equal and fair treatment of all state shareholders.
  • Helene Budliger Artieda — Director of the Swiss State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO), tempering overly optimistic tendencies among directors ahead of the next US government reaction.
  • Sandra Navidi — American stock market specialist explaining the actual and social pains of the fees.