US President Donald Trump responded with fury to the Supreme Court ruling on Friday that he lacked the power to unilaterally set tariffs on imports, denouncing individual justices as he vowed to continue a global trade war that has kept the world on edge for a year.
It was a rare loss for Mr Trump in the Supreme Court, which ruled 6-3 to uphold a lower court's previous finding that the US president had illegally imposed tariffs under a law meant for national emergencies.
Mr Trump tore into the justices who ruled against him — including two of his own nominees — calling them weak, a disgrace and an "embarrassment to their families".
He scoffed at what he cast as the majority's tortured logic and said he was undeterred by what he repeatedly called a "ridiculous" ruling.
Shortly after the ruling, Mr Trump signed an order for a new global tariff of 10 per cent — and raised that to 15 per cent Saturday, local time.
The new levies are grounded in a separate but untested law that requires congressional approval to extend them after 150 days.
But the US Supreme Court's ruling on Mr Trump's previous tariff program could shape how much power future presidents have to act on their own, especially when Congress hasn't given clear permission.
"It's one of the most significant cases on presidential power in the nation's history," said Raymond Ku, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University.
"There have been very few examples in which the president has essentially claimed such broad, unilateral power."
The outcome of the tariff ruling goes against the trend of the Trump administration's wider track record before the court, where the conservative majority has often backed the administration.
The Supreme Court's conservative majority
The Supreme Court currently consists of nine justices.
Three were appointed by Democrat presidents:
- Sonia Sotomayor
- Elena Kagan
- Kentaji Brown Jackson
While six were appointed by Republican presidents:
- Clarence Thomas
- John Roberts
- Samuel Alito
- Neil Gorsuch (Trump appointee)
- Brett Kavanaugh (Trump appointee)
- Amy Coney Barrett (Trump appointee)
This "conservative super-majority ... means that any justice inclined to moderate their view has to get at least one more justice to come with them," said law professor at Case Western Reserve University Jessie Hill.
In the tariffs case, two Trump appointees, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, sided with Chief Justice John Roberts and the three justices appointed by Democrats.
The court grounded its opinion, which was written by Chief Justice Roberts, with a quote from the US constitution: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises."
The argument by the Trump administration that it had identified a war-like emergency to justify a loophole failed to persuade the court.
"The government thus concedes, as it must, that the president enjoys no inherent authority to impose tariffs during peacetime," Justice Roberts wrote.
"And it does not defend the challenged tariffs as an exercise of the President's war-making powers.
"The United States, after all, is not at war with every nation in the world."
While the tariffs case went through the court's full, traditional process, most of the Trump administration's legal battles with the Supreme Court have unfolded through the fast-moving "emergency docket'' (also known as the "shadow docket").
The 'shadow docket' and the Trump administration
Supreme Court cases can take one of two tracks: the merits docket or the emergency docket.
The merits docket involves oral arguments, extensive briefing, and detailed written opinions, while the emergency docket is for cases that require a fast-tracked hearing.
Since taking office, the Trump administration has had only three cases proceed through the merits docket, compared with the 23 cases it has brought on the emergency docket.
These merits cases include the legality of Trump’s tariff plan, the firing of federal trade commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, and the removal of federal reserve governor Lisa Cook.
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments for the latter two cases in December and January, respectively.
Historically, the emergency docket was used rarely and limited to instances where an applicant faced serious irreparable harm, such as a death row inmate.
In the first 20 weeks of Trump's second term, the administration filed 19 emergency applications, matching the Biden administration's total over four years, according to Georgetown law professor Stephen Vladeck.
The Obama and George W Bush administrations together filed only eight such requests across 16 years.
While emergency docket decisions do not set a precedent, they often serve as the practical endpoint.
By the time people are deported and major policies are put into effect, the real-world consequences have already unfolded, making it difficult (if not impossible) to return to the earlier status quo.
The Trump administration has won 87 per cent of shadow docket cases
Since Mr Trump took office 13 months ago, the court has ruled on 23 shadow docket cases involving the Trump administration.
These cases have involved immigration raids, domestic troop deployment, birthright citizenship, firings of federal workers and agency officials, transgender rights, dismantling the Education Department, cuts to foreign aid and more.
[Datawrapper — A bar chart of the topics]- 20 rulings were at least partially in favour of the administration
- 3 rulings went against it
"This is not normal," Professor Ku said.
"There are always cases on the shadow docket, but the number of cases involving questions of this constitutional significance is incredibly rare.
"The Supreme Court has been allowing the president's actions to go forward, even though almost the unanimous series of opinions from the local lower courts have concluded that his acts are unconstitutional."
When has the Supreme Court ruled against the Trump administration?
Over half of the court's decisions with disclosed votes were decided by a 6–3 margin, with the three Democrat-appointed justices forming the dissent.
The court's ideological breakdown has meant the Trump administration has prevailed in most cases, but, as well as the tariffs case, there are three notable exceptions that show that support is not absolute:
A.A.R.P. v. Trump
Decision: Blocked the removal of protected status for Venezuelan nationals.
7-2 vote count: Barrett, Kavanaugh, Roberts, and Gorsuch joined the three Democrat-appointed justices.
Noem v. Abrego Garcia:
Decision: Ordered the Trump administration to "facilitate" the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a man mistakenly deported to El Salvador.
9-0 vote count: Unanimous ruling.
Department of State v. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition:
Decision: Ordered the Trump administration to promptly pay foreign aid groups.
5-4 vote count: Barrett and Roberts joined the Democrat-appointed justices.
[Datawrapper: Stacked bar chart showing how often each Justice rules in favour of Trump admin]The three Democrat-appointed judges are the least likely to rule in favour of the Trump administration and they have all spoken out about what they perceive as a misuse of the emergency docket.
- Justice Kagan: "Our emergency docket should never be used, as it has been this year, to permit what our own precedent bars. Still more, it should not be used, as it also has been, to transfer government authority from Congress to the President, and thus to reshape the Nation's separation of powers."
- Justice Jackson: "By needlessly granting the Government's emergency application to prohibit universal injunctions, the Court has cleared a path for the Executive to choose law-free action at this perilous moment for our Constitution."
- Justice Sotomayor: "Rather than allowing our lower court colleagues to manage this high-stakes litigation with the care and attention it plainly requires, this Court now intervenes to grant the Government emergency relief from an order it has repeatedly defied. I cannot join so gross an abuse of the Court's equitable discretion."
How did Biden fare before the Supreme Court?
The Supreme Court decided 19 Biden administration cases on the shadow docket. It ruled in the administration's favour in 10 of those cases (about 53 per cent), according to Professor Vladeck.
The Biden administration experienced a series of high-profile defeats before the Supreme Court on both the merits and emergency dockets:
Roe v. Wade was overturned (2022)
The right to an abortion in the US comes from a landmark court decision made in the 1970s, known as the Roe v Wade case. It is now the responsibility of individual states to decide if abortion is legal.
Affirmative action college admissions policies were blocked (2023)
The race-conscious policies had long been used to increase the numbers of Black, Hispanic and other minority students.
Student loan forgiveness blocked (2023)
The $US430 billion ($659 billion) student loan relief plan had been intended to benefit up to 43 million Americans.
Expansion of gun rights (2022) and a federal ban on "bump stock" devices was invalidated (2024)
"Bump stock" enables semi-automatic weapons to fire rapidly like machine guns.
"There's a direct line from the personnel changes on the court to these rulings coming out the way they did," Professor Hill said.
"I focus a lot on reproductive rights, and I can tell you that the day Ruth Bader Ginsburg died (September 18, 2020) those of us who study and work in this area all knew that Roe would be overruled … it was just a question of how long it would take for that to happen."
'Not a normal court'
Biden-appointed Justice Jackson has also raised concerns about how the court treats Democratic and Republican administrations differently on the emergency docket.
In her dissent in Noem v Doe, Jackson noted that when previous administrations asked the court for similar emergency relief, the justices "repeatedly denied" their requests.
Biden expressed frustration after some of his most searing defeats, at one point describing the Supreme Court as "not a normal court".
In his final year in office, he proposed major changes to the court including term limits of 18 years and binding and enforceable ethics rules.
His proposal went nowhere, given opposition by Republicans in Congress.
