The U.S. Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision struck down sweeping global tariffs imposed under emergency powers, finding the president exceeded his legal authority by bypassing Congress, a major setback for President Donald Trump’s trade policies.The court ruled in the majority opinion that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not give the president the power to unilaterally impose broad import tariffs, emphasizing that the Constitution clearly gives Congress the power to impose taxes, including tariffs.In response to the ruling, California Governor Gavin Newsom called for immediate refunds to American families and businesses of what he said were illegally imposed tariffs.“It’s time to pay a price. These tariffs are nothing more than an illegal cash grab that drives up prices and hurts working families. Every dollar illegally taken must be returned immediately, with interest,” Newsom wrote on X.
California’s role in challenging Trump tariffs
California has played a central role in the legal battle, becoming the first state to challenge the tariffs in court in April 2025. The state argued that Trump’s use of emergency powers to impose sweeping tariffs without congressional approval was illegal and would cause economic harm.State officials warned that the measures would disproportionately impact California’s large agricultural sector, exporters and small businesses, given that it has the largest state economy in the United States.Tariffs could collect more than $130 billion to $142 billion in 2025 alone, according to estimates from the Yale University Budget Lab and federal customs data. Analysts said the costs were passed on to consumers mainly through higher prices, with the average annual loss for U.S. households estimated at $1,751.The Supreme Court ruling marks a major victory for countries, businesses and trade groups that have challenged the tariffs, which they argue disrupt global trade relations and impose heavy fiscal burdens domestically.However, Trump criticized the ruling, calling it “very disappointing” and claiming his administration had “very strong alternatives” to continue protecting U.S. trade interests. He also said he planned to pursue other legal avenues to maintain tariffs under different statutory bodies.
