US supreme court rules against Donald Trump’s sweeping global tariffs – live

Republican senator John Curtis, from Utah, welcomed the supreme court’s ruling and, while not calling explicitly for refunds for consumers and small businesses, he also raises the question of “what happens to the revenue already collected”.

In a post on X he said:

Today’s ruling affirms, despite all the noise of the moment, that the Founders’ system of checks and balances remains strong nearly 250 years later. Several questions remain unanswered, including what happens to the revenue already collected and how the Administration may use alternative authorities to impose tariffs. Looking ahead, it is critical that we provide the clarity and predictability businesses need.

California governor Gavin Newsom has also responded on X:

Even Donald Trump’s Supreme Court agrees: His tax on the American people is illegal. A huge win for families and small businesses across the country who have been suffering under this man’s ego.

In a subsequent post, he added:

Issue an immediate refund to all Americans for your illegal tax. Now.

However as Shrai noted earlier, Elizabeth Warren has made the point that there is “no legal mechanism for consumers and many small businesses to recoup the money they have already paid”. She said:

Giant corporations with their armies of lawyers and lobbyists can sue for tariff refunds, then just pocket the money for themselves. It’s one more example of how the game is rigged.

Any refunds from the federal government should end up in the pockets of the millions of Americans and small businesses that were illegally cheated out of their hard-earned money by Donald Trump.

Democratic senator Tim Kaine has not minced his words in his response to the supreme court’s ruling that Trump illegally used executive power when he imposed his sweeping global tariffs.

In a post on X, the Virginia senator wrote:

We told Trump his tariffs were illegal, dumb, and harmful to families, farms, and small businesses. Americans don’t want tariffs, they want lower costs. Go back to square 1 and focus on US — not overseas invasions!

Dave Townsend, a lead attorney at Dorsey & Whitney who represents the US and foreign clients in trade litigation and disputes, said that it was “hard to overstate” the scale of the IEEPA tariffs as “they touch virtually every industry in one way or another”.

“Never in US history have tariffs been imposed by the executive branch so broadly. And likewise never in US history has a court invalidated tariffs on such a grand scale,” he added.

On the key question of refunds for those subjected to the now-invalidated IEEPA tariffs, Townsend noted that there are more than 2,000 lawsuits have already been brought seeking refunds, “but this is a small fraction” of US importers that may be entitled to them. A reminder that while that litigation was on pause during the supreme court’s deliberation, legal experts say we could now see a “groundswell” of claims following today’s ruling.

“The United States has said in litigation that more than 300,000 US importers have paid IEEPA tariffs. There are various ways that the refunds could be issued, and the supreme court did not say how the process should work,” Townsend said.

Mike Pence, the former vice-president during Donald Trump’s first administration, welcomed the supreme court’s decision that the president’s global tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) are illegal.

“Our Supreme Court has reaffirmed that the Constitution grants Congress – not the President – the power to tax,” Pence said in a statement. “With this decision, American families and businesses can breathe a sigh of relief.”

Senator Rand Paul – a Republican who often bucks his party in Congress – welcomed the supreme court’s ruling today.

“The Supreme Court makes plain what should have been obvious: ‘The power to impose tariffs is ‘very clearly a branch of the power to tax’,” he wrote on social media, referring to the court’s decision that Trump could not use the IEEPA and side-step Congress to implement the sweeping global tariffs.

Stephan Becker at Pillsbury notes that the big question is what happens next to the tariffs that are invalidated by the supreme court’s ruling today.

“The administration will be keen to maintain the special bilateral agreements it previously struck with countries such as the UK in exchange for reducing tariffs,” Becker said.

He noted that the “broad speculation” is that Donald Trump would try to use the “previously obscure” Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act, which lets the President impose tariffs up to 15% for up to 150 days to address balance of payments problems. These levies would, however, require Congress’s approval to extend beyond the deadline.

“This would allow the administration to quickly impose replacement tariffs while it takes the required procedural steps to impose tariffs under the other statutes,” Becker added.

The Senate’s top Democrat, Chuck Schumer, has said the supreme court’s ruling that many of the president’s global tariffs are illegal is “a win for the wallets of every American consumer”.

The administration’s “chaotic and illegal tariff tax made life more expensive and our economy more unstable”, Schumer said. “Families paid more. Small businesses and farmers got squeezed. Markets swung wildly.”

Joining the chorus of lawmakers heralding the court’s decision today, Schumer called on Donald Trump to “end this reckless trade war for good and finally give families and small businesses the relief they deserve”.

Reporting on international trade

Donald Trump is unlikely to abandon his tariff strategy on account of the supreme court ruling, say legal experts.

Basil Woodd-Walker, disputes and investigations partner at global law firm Simmons & Simmon said he can just switch focus from the blanket “liberation day” reciprocal tariffs he opposed on dozens of countries to sectoral tariffs.

“Most commentators had expected the supreme court to strike down Trump’s IEEPA tariffs. But President Trump has made it clear that he is not going to abandon his international trade policy, and will find other ways to implement it,” he said. “The US administration may pivot to other tariff regimes or trade barriers to replace the lost income.”

As my colleague, Lisa O’Carroll, reported earlier the supreme court’s ruling has certainly not ended the entirety of administration’s tariffs.

Stephan Becker – leading international trade attorney at Pillsbury in Washington DC – underscores that while today’s decision invalidates many of the tariffs under IEEPA, other levies have been imposed under other legal authorities that expressly grant Donald Trump the ability to do so. He notes that these include Section 232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act and Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act.

The former authorizes the imposition of tariffs for national security reasons, while the latter allows duties to compel other countries to change policies unfair to US exports.

“Those existing tariffs will not be affected by the Court’s decision. To put it simply, tariffs will remain a central element of the administration’s foreign policy even after today’s judgment,” Becker said.

Reporting on international trade

A spokesperson for Downing Street, said it was also assessing the implications of the US supreme court ruling on tariffs.

“The UK government is working with the US to understand how the overturning of Donald Trump’s tariffs by the Superme Court will affect the UK but expects our privileged trading poisiton with the US to continue.”

The UK was the first to strike a tariff deal with the US with 10% blanket tariffs on imports from Britain, compared to 15% inclusive in the EU.

Donald Trump reportedly said the supreme court’s decision was a “disgrace” at a White House breakfast meeting with US governors, according to CNN’s Kaitlan Collins. He also told those gathered that he has a backup plan.

The president has yet to put out an official statement, or comment on social media.

Reporting on international trade

The EU has said it is analysing the supreme court ruling while continuing its drive to work towards reducing the tariffs the US imposed on European exports.

The EU agreed a blanket 15% tariff rate with the US at Trump’s Scottish golf course last July but 50% tariffs are still imposed on steel.

“We take note of the ruling by the US Supreme Court and are analysing it carefully.

“We remain in close contact with the US administration as we seek clarity on the steps they intend to take in response to this ruling.

“Businesses on both sides of the Atlantic depend on stability and predictability in the trading relationship. We therefore continue to advocate for low tariffs and to work towards reducing them,” it said.

Reporting on international trade

The supreme court ruling drives a coach and horses through Donald Trump’s “liberation day” tariffs last April – which led to trade deals with 20 countries including the UK, EU, China and other countries including Vietnam, Switzerland and Lesotha, a country Trump said “nobody had ever heard of”.

While the supreme court has ruled that Trump did not have authority to impose these tariffs unilaterally, it does not mean the end of the road of tariffs from the US president.

He may continue to impose tariffs on grounds of national security.

The 25% steel tariffs on the UK and 50% on the EU along with punitive extra tariffs on produces that contain an element of steel, known as steel derivatives may well. be justified as part of Trump’s section 232 investigations.

They have been deployed to justify tariffs on products that are deemed at threat to the US’ national security.

The court ruled that the Trump administration’s interpretation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs intruded on the powers of Congress and violated a legal principle called the “major questions” doctrine.

We’re starting to see members of Congress react to the supreme court ruling that many of Donald Trump’s global tariffs are illegal.

Democratic senator Elizabeth Warren, said that no decision can “undo the massive damage that the Trump tariffs have done to small businesses, to American supply chains, and especially to American families forced to pay higher prices on everything from groceries to housing”.

She added that there is “no legal mechanism for consumers and many small businesses to recoup the money they have already paid”.

“Giant corporations with their armies of lawyers and lobbyists can sue for tariff refunds, then just pocket the money for themselves. It’s one more example of how the game is rigged,” said Warren, who is the ranking member on the Senate banking committee. “Any refunds from the federal government should end up in the pockets of the millions of Americans and small businesses that were illegally cheated out of their hard-earned money by Donald Trump.”

One note, the ruling on Trump’s tariffs is the only decision we can expect from the supreme court today.

In the court’s ruling today, chief justice John Roberts wrote:

When Congress has delegated its tariff powers, it has done so in explicit terms and subject to strict limits.

Against that backdrop of clear and limited delegations, the Government reads IEEPA to give the President power to unilaterally impose unbounded tariffs and change them at will. That view would represent a transformative expansion of the President’s authority over tariff policy.

The supreme court has issued a sharp rebuke against the Trump administration and ruled against the legality of the president’s sweeping global tariffs.

In a 6-3 decision, the court holds that International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) – a 1977 statute which grants the president authority to regulate or prohibit certain international transactions during a national emergency – does not authorize the president to impose the tariffs.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.

The court has issued a decision in a case challenging the legality of Donald Trump’s sweeping global tariffs. We’ll bring you the latest as we parse through the opinion.