Trump supreme court tariff ruling sparks backlash as president condemns decision voiding global “Liberation Day” duties

The President of the United States, Donald Trump, on Friday rejected a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that struck down his sweeping global tariffs on Nigeria and 184 other countries, describing the judgment as “deeply disappointing” during remarks at the White House in Washington, DC.

Also read: Trump hails Christians on Ash Wednesday, leaves Ramadan unaddressed

The court, in a 6–3 majority ruling delivered on Thursday, held that Trump exceeded his authority by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose broad import levies without explicit congressional approval.

Speaking a day after the decision, Trump criticised members of the court, saying the ruling lacked courage and undermined what he characterised as efforts to protect American economic interests.

Trump had, on April 2, 2025, a date he branded “Liberation Day”, introduced a 10 per cent baseline tariff on imports from all countries.

The policy also imposed additional reciprocal tariffs ranging from 11 per cent to 50 per cent on nations with significant trade deficits with the United States.

Nigeria was subjected to a 15 per cent tariff under the measures, while countries including China, Cambodia and Japan faced higher country-specific rates.

As trade tensions intensified, duties rose as high as 50 per cent on key partners such as India and Brazil, and up to 145 per cent on China in 2025.

The administration relied on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a 1970s-era statute permitting presidents to regulate certain economic transactions during national emergencies.

However, the Supreme Court ruled that the emergency authority cited “falls short” of granting the president power to impose tariffs of such magnitude.

Delivering the lead opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts said the decision was necessary to preserve constitutional boundaries between Congress and the executive.

Roberts wrote that permitting the administration’s approach would replace longstanding executive-legislative collaboration over trade policy with unchecked presidential action.

Roberts stressed that Congress must provide clear authorisation when granting tariff powers and concluded that such authorisation was absent in this case.

The court clarified that the ruling applied specifically to the “Liberation Day” tariffs and not to separate duties imposed under other statutory frameworks.

Notably, the justices did not address whether funds already collected under the disputed tariffs would be refunded.

According to data from United States Customs and Border Protection and filings before the US Court of International Trade, the federal government had collected $134bn in revenue from the challenged measures as of mid-December.

In dissent, Justice Brett Kavanaugh observed that the majority opinion did not explain how the government should handle potential repayments, warning that any refund process could prove complex and contentious.

The Trump Supreme Court tariff ruling is widely regarded as one of the most consequential economic judgments in recent years.

Lower courts had previously ruled against the emergency tariffs, including in a case brought by New York-based importer V.O.S. Selections, a decision later affirmed by an appellate court in Washington.

While legal analysts note that the president retains narrower statutory avenues to impose tariffs without congressional approval, those mechanisms are subject to stricter conditions and time limits.

Also read: Trump deletes video showing Obamas as monkeys after backlash

For now, the ruling marks a decisive judicial check on executive authority in trade policy, setting the stage for renewed debate in Congress over the scope of presidential power in economic emergencies.