U.S. tariffs raised to 15% after Supreme Court ruling

Supreme Court ruling on Trump tariffs limits unilateral presidential authority

In a 6–3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded the president overstepped executive powers by introducing sweeping global tariffs last year, striking down the emergency tariff pathway that had been used. This holding curtails unilateral tariff-making and resets the legal baseline for trade actions, as reported by BBC.

Early expert reads indicate the majority opinion narrows reliance on generalized emergency authorities for broad trade measures and closes off some of the other unilateral options the administration had asserted, according to Chatham House. The ruling effectively channels any future tariff actions back through specific statutes enacted by Congress.

Why the decision matters: separation of powers and statutory constraints

The decision reinforces separation-of-powers principles that place taxation and tariff authority with Congress and require clear statutory grounding for executive trade actions, according to Newsweek. In practical terms, future White House tariff initiatives will likely be judged against detailed statutory text and congressional intent rather than broad emergency claims.

Legal practitioners underscored that constitutional framing and its operational consequences for executive trade tools. “A complete and total victory for the challenge to President Trump’s tariffs,” said Neal Katyal, former Acting U.S. Solicitor General.

Immediate impact: 15% global tariff plan and refund uncertainties

President Donald Trump said he is raising global tariffs to 15% from the 10% import tax he imposed the day before in response to the Supreme Court ruling, and he vowed to work around the decision that invalidated his emergency tariffs, as reported by The Washington Post. The announced increase signals an immediate attempt to maintain leverage while legal teams pivot to alternative authorities.

Businesses are seeking repayment for an estimated $133 billion already collected under the tariffs and are evaluating potential refund avenues, according to Al Jazeera. The timing, mechanics, and eligibility for repayments remain unsettled and could depend on further court proceedings and agency guidance.

Economists and industry groups are reassessing investment and supply-chain plans in light of the ruling and the proposed new legal basis for tariffs. “The ruling diminishes the ‘tariff cudgel,’” said Rachel Ziemba, Senior Fellow at the Center for a New American Security.

At the time of this writing, Apple Inc. traded around $261.40 in NasdaqGS real-time pricing, based on data from the NasdaqGS feed. Market levels offer only a partial snapshot of tariff risk as investors parse the legal path and potential corporate cash-flow effects from any refunds.

Can Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 be used?

The administration has pointed to Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 as a pathway for a 15% across-the-board tariff, and legal challenges are widely anticipated, according to Times of India. In that context, Neal Katyal noted that the U.S. Department of Justice previously argued Section 122 does not support imposing tariffs based purely on trade deficits, signaling a key fault line for any forthcoming litigation. The viability of this route will likely turn on how narrowly the measure is drafted and how courts read the statute’s scope relative to Congress’s tariff powers.