President Donald Trump has criticised a ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States that struck down his broad-based global tariffs affecting Nigeria and more than 180 other countries.
In a 6–3 decision delivered on Thursday, the court found that Trump overstepped his authority by using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping import duties. The majority held that the law does not grant the president unlimited power to introduce tariffs without explicit approval from Congress.
Background to the Tariffs
On April 2, 2025 — a date Trump labelled “Liberation Day” — his administration introduced a 10 percent baseline tariff on imports from all countries, alongside additional country-specific “reciprocal” tariffs ranging from 11 percent to 50 percent for nations with significant trade imbalances with the United States.
Under that policy, Nigeria faced a 15 percent tariff. Other countries, including China, Japan, Cambodia, India and Brazil, were also hit with elevated duties, with tariffs on Chinese goods reportedly climbing as high as 145 percent during escalating trade tensions in 2025.
The administration argued that the measures were necessary to counter unfair trade practices and protect the American economy. Officials maintained that emergency powers under IEEPA allowed the president to regulate imports during a declared national emergency.
The Court’s Reasoning
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said the Constitution assigns Congress the primary role in setting tariffs and regulating trade. He noted that permitting the president to impose wide-ranging tariffs without clear legislative backing would upset the long-standing balance between the executive and legislative branches.
The ruling clarified that it applies specifically to the “Liberation Day” tariffs enacted under emergency powers and does not automatically invalidate other trade measures implemented under separate statutory authorities.
Trump’s Reaction
Speaking at the White House, Trump described the judgment as “deeply disappointing,” criticising members of the court and insisting that tariffs are essential to maintaining U.S. economic strength.
The Justice Department had framed the case as vital to the nation’s economic interests, arguing that tariff authority was central to protecting domestic industries.
Financial and Legal Implications
The court did not address whether importers would be reimbursed for duties already collected under the invalidated tariffs. According to filings before the U.S. Court of International Trade, the government had generated approximately $134 billion in revenue from the contested measures as of mid-December.
In dissent, Justice Brett Kavanaugh questioned how the government would handle potential refunds, warning that resolving the issue could prove complicated.
Legal experts note that while the president retains other mechanisms to impose tariffs without direct congressional approval, those powers are more narrowly defined. For example, some provisions limit tariff increases to 15 percent for up to 150 days, while others require national security investigations led by the Commerce Department and apply only to specific industries.
A Landmark Economic Case
The dispute is considered one of the most significant trade-related cases in recent years, testing the scope of presidential authority over tariffs and economic policy. Lower courts had previously ruled against the emergency tariffs, including a decision by the U.S. Court of International Trade in a case brought by wine importer V.O.S. Selections — a ruling later upheld on appeal.
With the Supreme Court’s decision now in place, the administration must determine its next steps as debate continues over executive power, congressional oversight and the future of U.S. trade policy.