Amna Nawaz:
Welcome to the “News Hour.”
The Supreme Court struck down most of President Trump’s global tariffs today in a 6-3 decision that is a major blow to his economic agenda.
Geoff Bennett:
The court ruled that President Trump did not have the authority under a 1977 economic emergency law to issue such sweeping tariffs.
The president responded forcefully, using sharp language to criticize the justices who ruled against him, calling them unpatriotic and disloyal to the Constitution. At a press conference, he said he would move forward regardless, vowing to impose a global 10 percent across-the-board tariff under a different law.
President Donald Trump:
The Supreme Court’s ruling on tariffs is deeply disappointing. And I’m ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country.
The Democrats on the court are thrilled, but they will automatically vote no. They’re against anything that makes America strong, healthy, and great again. They also are a, frankly, disgrace to our nation. Although I firmly disagree with the court’s holding today, the decision might not substantially constrain a president’s ability to order tariffs going forward.
That’s because numerous other federal statutes, which is so true, authorize the president to impose tariffs and might justify most, if not all, of the tariffs issued in this case, even more tariffs actually.
Geoff Bennett:
And we start our coverage tonight with the “News Hour”‘s Supreme Court analyst and SCOTUSblog co-founder, Amy Howe.
Amy, it’s always good to see you.
I want to read part of the chief justice’s opinion in this case where he challenges the president’s decision to impose the tariffs. He says in part — quote — “The president asserts the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs. In light of the breadth, history, and constitutional context of that asserted authority, he must identify clear congressional authorization to exercise it.”
So what are your key takeaways from today’s ruling and this rebuke of the president’s approach?
Amy Howe:
So this ruling didn’t come as much of a surprise.
After the oral argument, it seemed like the Supreme Court was likely to strike down the tariffs. The real question was how many justices would join to strike the tariffs down and would they be able to coalesce around a particular rationale?
I think probably from the justices’ perspective it’s not a personal rebuke, as much as it’s a legal rebuke. Under the court’s precedent for the president to exercise this kind of sweeping power, they’re saying Congress needs to be really clear before it hands over that power. And they’re saying, we just don’t see it here this time.
Geoff Bennett:
Well, the president, as we saw in that press briefing, he attacked the justices personally and he also criticized the way they wrote the decision, saying they invalidated the tariffs, but didn’t clarify what should happen to the revenue already collected.
Donald Trump:
I said, well, what happens to all the money that we took in? It wasn’t discussed. Wouldn’t you think they would have put one sentence in there saying that keep the money or don’t keep the money, right? I guess it has to get litigated for the next two years.
So they write this terrible, defective decision, totally defective.
Geoff Bennett:
So, what do you make of that?
And earlier this evening, you have the governor of Illinois, J.B. Pritzker, demanding a $1,700 refund per family for the people of his state.
Amy Howe:
The only real reference to it is in Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s opinion for the three dissenting justices.
The lack of reference to the refunds is complicated by the fact that the litigants who were actually before the Supreme Court in these cases had been promised immediate refunds by the federal government if they prevailed, and it wasn’t actually part of the question before the Supreme Court.
The only question before the Supreme Court was, does this federal law, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, authorize the tariffs that the president imposed? Could the Supreme Court have said something about the refunds? Maybe, but it wasn’t entirely surprising that they didn’t do it.
Geoff Bennett:
The way the president attacked the justices, what does that reveal about the relationship between the president and the Supreme Court in this moment?
Amy Howe:
Well, in this moment, clearly, it’s not good. The Trump administration, particularly on the court’s emergency docket, had been on a long winning streak in the Supreme Court for basically all of 2025. There was something like 24 straight victories on the emergency docket.
The Trump administration is likely to prevail in some other important cases involving executive power, including the question of whether or not the president has the power to fire the heads of independent agencies like the Federal Trade Commission and the Consumer Product Safety Commission for any reason at all.
In the past, he has referred to the justices that he has appointed as my justices. And so he feels, I think, betrayed by Justice Neil Gorsuch and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who were in the majority today and who he appointed.
So I think he feels like the Supreme Court possibly is there to rubber-stamp his policies, and, with Justice Barrett and Justice Gorsuch, perhaps a bit transactional, that they are there because he appointed him and they should support him.
Geoff Bennett:
Amy Howe, thanks, as always, for your analysis.
Amy Howe:
Thank you.
