On Feb. 20, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Trump’s imposition of global tariffs unconstitutional.
On Feb. 1, 2025, Trump declared tariffs on imports from Canada, Mexico, and China behind the policies of the IEEPA. The reason behind these tariffs was the attempt to limit the amount of illicit drugs entering the U.S. Various small businesses filed lawsuits, stating that they were affected by the increased tariffs, and challenged the power that IEEPA gave Trump.
“I think that definitely having decreased tariffs would improve the lives of people who were affected by those, due to not being able to afford certain things. I think that a reduction in tariffs would definitely be helpful for those people,” sophomore Madeline Ko said.
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the act of pushing global tariffs without approval from Congress is out of Trump’s presidential power and unconstitutional. According to the U.S. Constitution, the ability to tax is in the hands of the legislature, prohibiting the president’s power to make such a decision.
“He has no control over this, and he shouldn’t have any control over this. I think it’s ruining people’s lives,” sophomore Elizabeth Fowler said.
The Trump administration requested the Federal Circuit Court to wait 90 days before taking action, with the intention of giving the other branches of government time to reflect on possibilities.
The logic behind Trump’s actions was the policies given by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). This law, passed in 1977, grants the president authority to regulate various economic transactions in the case of a national threat or emergency against America. However, justices proved that the IEEPA not only did not authorize the taxation, but also did not consider taxation as a regulation.
“I think because we’re kind of going against all the treaty laws and stuff that has been placed in the past, we’re kind of ruining our trust with other countries,” Fowler said.
“I generally agree with the ruling; I can never be entirely sure of the intent behind the tariffs. The stated purpose will not accurately help the American economy. And so labeling this unconstitutional, I think, will be beneficial,” Ko said.
While the ruling was a risk considering how influential President Trump is, the decision to rule against him gave U.S. citizens security in the legislative branch.
“I think they should’ve stopped it, and they should do more to get rid of the tariffs.” Elizabeth Fowler said.
The ruling not only enforced the law but also the system of checks and balances on which the U.S. government operates. It is vital that this system continues to maintain the balance of power in our government. Especially for the groups of people who are vulnerable to the President’s power.
“I do think that it was necessary because the government works on a system of checks and balances, and so I feel like for the Supreme Court to not get involved would sort of violate the key government principle, the reason we have them in the first place.” Madeline Ko said.
As a result of the tariffs, the federal government will likely need to refund a significant amount of money to those importers who paid the IEEPA taxes.
