EXPLAINEREconomy|Donald TrumpCan Trump still impose tariffs after the Supreme Court ruling?The case is the first major challenge to Trump’s policy agenda, but the US president still has other legal avenues to pursue trade restrictions.

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that President Donald Trump's global tariffs are illegal. In a 6–3 decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court determined that Trump overstepped his authority by using a 1977 law to impose the tariffs.

The court ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not permit the president to unilaterally impose sweeping tariffs. Chief Justice Roberts stated, "Our task today is to decide only whether the power to ‘regulate … importation,’ as granted to the president in IEEPA, embraces the power to impose tariffs. It does not."

The justices clarified that the 1977 law was intended for presidents to address specific national emergencies, such as freezing assets or blocking transactions, and not for implementing broad tariffs to overhaul U.S. trade policy. The majority opinion concluded that utilizing IEEPA in this manner exceeded the authority intended by Congress.

President Trump argued that the tariffs were justified under the IEEPA, citing six national emergencies. He referred to the persistent U.S. trade deficit as one such emergency and the influx of illegal fentanyl into the U.S. as another.

The tariffs were divided into two groups: one set applied to nearly every country to address trade deficits, and another targeted Mexico, Canada, and China due to their alleged roles in the fentanyl crisis.

The Trump administration has not released tariff collection data since Dec 14. However, estimates by Michael Pearce, chief U.S. economist at Oxford Economics, suggest that over $130 billion in tariffs have been collected under the emergency declarations. The ruling is expected to prompt a legal battle over potential refunds of these tariffs.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented, suggesting that Trump's use of IEEPA was an incorrect statutory choice but did not preclude him from imposing similar tariffs under other legal authorities.

Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, both appointed by Trump, joined Chief Justice Roberts's majority opinion.

Despite the ruling, the president retains other legal options for imposing tariffs. Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 allows tariffs on national security grounds and was previously used during Trump's administration for steel and aluminum tariffs. Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 permits tariffs in response to unfair trade practices, which was a basis for many tariffs on China during earlier trade disputes.

President Trump criticized the ruling, expressing that presidents should have broad authority over trade. He remarked on the limitations imposed by the court's interpretation, while also acknowledging Justice Kavanaugh's dissent, which suggested other legal avenues might remain open.

Beyond the immediate impact on tariffs, the ruling may influence how future presidents exercise emergency powers, potentially limiting unilateral actions. The decision sends a “clear signal” that presidential authority is not unlimited.

Based on reporting by Al Jazeera.