Live: US Court Strikes Down Trump’s Global Tariffs

New York/Washington: A leading US business chamber on Friday said refunds would be available for some levies applied to goods from Brazil and India after the Supreme Court struck down President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs.In a 6-3 vote, the judges found that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorise the imposition of duties. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A Alito Jr. and Brett Kavanaugh dissented in the court's decision.

The US Chamber of Commerce welcomed the Supreme Court's decision to strike down Trump's sweeping tariffs, calling on the administration to use this opportunity to reset the overall tariff policy to lower costs for families.

Executive Vice President and Chief Policy Officer at the US Chamber of Commerce Neil Bradley said the Supreme Court's decision is "welcome news" for businesses and consumers.

"Over the past year, the Chamber has been working with small and midsize businesses around the country that have seen significant cost increases and supply chain disruptions as a result of these tariffs," Bradley said in a statement.

"Swift refunds of the impermissible tariffs will be meaningful for the more than 200,000 small business importers in this country and will help support stronger economic growth this year," he added.

It noted that the Court's decision has "opened the door" for many US small businesses to seek refunds, but added that determining whether a business qualifies for the refund -and understanding what steps to take next-can be challenging.

US importers of record who directly paid the tariffs or the person who takes ownership of the goods once they have cleared customs (the "consignee") may be eligible for a refund, it said in an FAQ about who could be eligible for the tariff refunds.

"Businesses that did not directly pay the tariffs are not eligible for a refund. Refunds are only available for tariffs applied under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA). This includes tariffs commonly known as "fentanyl," "trafficking," "reciprocal," or "baseline" tariffs, as well as some other tariffs applied to goods from Brazil and India," it said.

Trump had imposed 25 per cent reciprocal tariffs on India and an additional 25 per cent punitive tariff for Delhi's purchases of Russian oil.

While he slashed the reciprocal tariffs to 18 per cent, the 25 per cent levies imposed for Russian oil purchases were removed, with Trump noting the commitment by India to stop directly or indirectly importing energy from Moscow and purchasing American energy products.

The chamber added that refunds are not available for so-called Section 232, Section 301, Section 201, anti-dumping and countervailing duties, or most-favoured nation (MFN) tariffs.

It noted that the process for obtaining tariff refunds remains uncertain. "We expect to learn more from the courts and from the administration in the days ahead," it said.

It encouraged the Trump administration to use this opportunity to reset overall tariff policy in a manner that will lead to greater economic growth, larger wage gains for workers, and lower costs for families.

It had filed an amicus brief arguing that the challenged tariffs were enacted in excess of statutory authority and are causing irreparable harm to businesses of all sizes.  — PTI

 Norm Eisen, a former U.S. ambassador to the Czech Republic who was a legal adviser to Democrats during Trump’s first impeachment, called the tariff decision a “victory for the Constitution and for Congress’ Article I authority over taxes and tariffs. The International Emergency Economic Powers Act provides limited authority to the President to take actions to regulate imports to respond to unusual and extraordinary threats.”

Eisen, the executive chair of the Democracy Defenders Fund, said in a statement that the administration had tried to distort the emergency powers act to address routine trade deficits and disagreements “and the Supreme Court correctly smacked that down.”

Economist: Tariff ruling to provide modest benefit to businesses Sarah House, a senior economist at Wells Fargo, said the ruling will provide some additional certainty for companies, many of which have already adjusted to the tariffs, by shifting their supply chains to lower-tariffs countries.

The additional certainty could lead to modestly higher investment and job creation by businesses, after they slammed the brakes on hiring last year in part because of tariff uncertainty. The economy added less than 200,000 jobs in 2025, the government said last week, the fewest since the pandemic.

“Uncertainty hasn’t gone away,” she cautioned. “There are still a lot of questions out there: What about refunds? What other statutes will the administration use to impose the tariffs? Will your products fall under those?”

Mexico’s president on tariff ruling: ‘We’re going to wait and see its reach’ In Mexico, which has been vigorously negotiating on tariffs with the administration, President Claudia Sheinbaum noted the ruling in her morning press briefing, saying “We’re going to wait and see its reach.”

Mexico, whose biggest trading partner is the U.S., has been able to dodge the brunt of the tariffs by more aggressively going after drug cartels under pressure from the Trump administration. The country recently stopped sending oil to its ally Cuba around the same time Trump threatened to impose tariffs on countries that sent gas to the island.

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum speaks at the National Palace in Mexico City, Nov. 7, 2025. (AP Photo/Marco Ugarte, File)

While uncertainty simmered in Latin America, Gabriella Siller, analyst for the Mexican financial group Banco Base, said that the order was “good news” for Mexico. The Mexican pesos jumped Friday morning.

Siller added that Trump can still use other tariff measures and pull other political levers to pressure Mexico, especially in the lead up to renegotiations of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement.

“It’s a pressure cooker. We’ll see how Trump responds. His responses are usually strong and aggressive, and could trigger a new episode of high volatility” for Mexico, Siller said.

British government expects its ‘privileged trading position’ to continue The British government said it expects the U.K.’s “privileged trading position” with the U.S. to continue after Trump’s tariffs were struck down by the country’s Supreme Court.

The U.K. received the lowest reciprocal tariff rate of 10% from the U.S. A subsequent deal saw further carve-outs for Britain’s steel industry and car manufacturers.

“The U.K. enjoys the lowest reciprocal tariffs globally, and under any scenario we expect our privileged trading position with the U.S. to continue,” a government spokesman said. “We will work with the Administration to understand how the ruling will affect tariffs for the U.K. and the rest of the world.”

Trump reacts to SCOTUS decision in real time President Trump described the Supreme Court decision as “a disgrace” when he was notified in real time during his morning meeting with several governors.

That’s according to someone with direct knowledge of the president’s reaction, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the private conversation. Trump was meeting privately with nearly two dozen governors from both parties when the decision was released.

Trading partners are prepared and are unlikely to walk away from recent deals, says a former trade official Wendy Cutler, a former U.S. trade negotiator, said U.S. trading partners were aware of the risks Trump faced in using the emergency clause to impose tariffs.

“Nevertheless, they chose to conclude deals with Washington, convinced that other statutes would be utilized to keep the tariffs in place,” said Cutler, now vice president of the Asia Society Policy Institute.

“They are waiting to see the Administration’s Plan B,” she said. “Walking away from the deals announced in recent months does not seem to be in the cards.”

The Trump administration this month signed trade deals with Taiwan and Indonesia.

Neal Katyal, who argued the case at SCOTUS, calls decision ‘complete and total victory’ Katyal, the former Acting Solicitor General of the United States, told The Associated Press: “the decision today is everything we asked the Supreme Court to do.”

“It is a complete and total victory for the challenge to President Trump’s tariffs. It’s a reaffirmation of our deepest constitutional values and the idea that Congress, not any one man, controls the power to tax the American people.

Canada’s Chamber of Commerce CEO says this is not a reset of US trade policy “The Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the use of IEEPA tariff powers is a legal ruling, not a reset of U.S. trade policy. This is certainly not the last chapter of this never-ending story,” Candace Laing, the President and CEO of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce said in a statement.

“Canada should prepare for new, blunter mechanisms to be used to reassert trade pressure, potentially with broader and more disruptive effects,” Laing said.

Cornell economist expects the ruling to weaken Trump’s hands in trade talks but not to fundamentally alter the process Eswar Prasad, an economist at Cornell University, said the the decision will create procedural delays and complicate the process of imposing tariffs. But, it is unlikely to alter the course, he said.

“The ruling sharply constrains the Trump administration’s aggressive use of tariffs without Congressional approval. Still, it is unlikely to deter the administration from pursuing other avenues to impose tariffs,” he said, noting the Trump administration has made it clear that it is prepared to re-impose similar levels of tariffs using other tools.

Senate Democratic Leader Schumer says tariff ruling is ‘win for the wallets’ of American consumers Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said in a statement that the Supreme Court’s ruling striking down President Donald Trump’s tariffs on Friday will “finally give families and small businesses the relief they deserve” and that Trump should end “this reckless trade war for good.”

He said the president’s “overreach failed.”

“We’ve said from day one: a president cannot ignore Congress and unilaterally slap tariffs on Americans,” Schumer said.

What’s next for tariffs Experts say tariffs in some form are likely to be here to stay, and a refund process to refund the tens of billions of dollars collected under the tariffs might be cumbersome.

“That refund process could be easy, but it appears more likely that more litigation and paperwork will be required – a particularly unfair burden for smaller importers that lack the resources to litigate tariff refund claims yet never did anything wrong,” said Scott Lincicome, vice president of general economics at libertarian think tank Cato Institute.

He said Congress should provide lasting protection against tariffs.

“The tariff beatings will continue until Congress reclaims some of its constitutional authority over U.S. trade policy and checks the administration’s worst tariff impulses.”

Democratic lawmakers applaud Supreme Court ruling on tariffs Some of the top Democratic lawmakers in the House are celebrating the Supreme Court’s decision striking down President Donald Trump’s global tariffs.

Rep. Richard Neal, the ranking Democratic lawmaker on the House Ways and Means Committee, calls the decision “a victory for the American people, the rule of law, and our standing in the global economy.”

Neal says the tariffs drove up grocery and energy prices and destabilized small businesses. He also says the administration must make consumers and businesses whole.

Rep. Brendan Boyle, the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said the tariffs weakened the economy and made it harder for families to make ends meet.

“Today’s decision is an important step toward protecting families and restoring basic economic fairness,” Boyle said.

Ruling helps provide certainty Dave French, executive vice president of government relations for The National Retail Federation, the nation’s largest retail industry trade group, said Friday the ruling provides “much-needed certainty for U.S. businesses and manufacturers.”

“Clear and consistent trade policy is essential for economic growth, creating jobs and opportunities for American families,” he said.

The trade group urged the lower court to ensure “a seamless process” to refund the tariffs to U.S. importers. It noted that the refunds will serve as an economic boost and allow companies to reinvest in their operations, their workers and their customers.

House Democrats’ Super PAC vows to continue campaigning on Trump’s tariffs despite decision “The Supreme Court’s decision clarifies the law, but it doesn’t rewrite history,” House Majority PAC, one of the main political action committees backing House Democratic candidates, said in a statement.

“Vulnerable House Republicans repeatedly voted to enable Trump’s tariffs, which raised prices and wreaked economic havoc on American families and businesses. Their constituents have paid the price, and House Majority PAC will ensure Republicans are held accountable for their votes come November,” the organization said in a statement.

Doing a ‘happy dance’ Ann Robinson owns Scottish Gourmet in Greensboro, N.C., which sells imported food and gifts from the U.K. as well as some items from India and China. She said she was “doing a happy dance” when she heard the news.

“I am overjoyed, but nervous about what new method the current administration will take to cover the deficit spending caused by the Big Beautiful Bill,” she said. “Tariffs were the easy answer -- now that is gone.”

The 10% baseline tariff on U.K. goods put pressure on Robinson’s business.

“I ended up spending about $30,000 on tariffs in the fall season,” she said. Now she is wondering how long it will take to unwind the tariffs.

“I have goods flying in next week, and a container docking next Friday,” she said. “Time to schedule my ′ Say Goodbye to Tariffs Sale’!”

The court majority did not address whether companies could get refunds Companies have collectively paid billions in tariffs. Many companies, including the big-box warehouse chain Costco, have already lined up for refunds in court, and Kavanaugh noted the process could be complicated.

“The Court says nothing today about whether, and if so how, the Government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers. But that process is likely to be a ‘mess,’ as was acknowledged at oral argument,” Justice Kavanaugh wrote in the dissent.

Small businesses hope for a quick refund We Pay the Tariffs, a coalition of more than 800 small businesses that has been advocating against the tariffs, said a process for refunding the tariffs is imperative.

“A legal victory is meaningless without actual relief for the businesses that paid these tariffs,” executive director Dan Anthony said in a statement. “The administration’s only responsible course of action now is to establish a fast, efficient, and automatic refund process that returns tariff money to the businesses that paid it.”

‘Welcome news for American importers’ Scott Lincicome, at Cato’s Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies said the Supreme Court’s decision “is welcome news for American importers” and the U.S. economy, however “the federal government must refund the tens of billions of dollars in customs duties” that it collected pursuant to its perceived International Emergency Economic Powers Act power authority that the court says it does not have.

“That refund process could be easy, but it appears more likely that more litigation and paperwork will be required,” Lincicome said.

No immediate White House response Trump had been steeling himself for the possibility that the Supreme Court could reject his power to declare an emergency and impose tariffs — but the White House stayed conspicuously quiet in the roughly 20 minutes after the court ruled against Trump.

The ruling delivered a colossal blow to Trump’s belief that he could impose import taxes without needing to go through Congress, adding to the chaos that Trump’s back and forth over tariffs since his return to the White House have provoked.

The president has previously said that losing the case would derail the U.S. economy and cause the budget deficit to explode without the tariff revenues.

Small business group applauds ruling The CAMEO Network, a small business organization, praised the Supreme Court’s ruling Friday.

“Tariffs are holding back U.S. manufacturing, driving up costs for businesses and consumers, and slowing our economy,” said Carolina Martinez, CEO of CAMEO. “Our hope is that this ruling provides relief for business owners who have been navigating supply chain shocks and uncertainty over the past year.”

Previous rulings from the emergency docket The Supreme Court ruling comes despite a series of short-term wins on the court’s emergency docket that have allowed Trump to push ahead with extraordinary flexes of executive power on issues ranging from high-profile firings to major federal funding cuts.

US stocks hold relatively steady U.S. stocks are edging higher in tentative trading after the Supreme Court struck down President Trump’s sweeping tariffs, which had been a source of volatility for the market.

The S&P 500 was 0.1% higher a few minutes after the court announced its ruling. It had been drifting between small gains and losses earlier in the morning, after discouraging reports showing slowing growth for the economy and faster inflation created relatively few ripples in the market.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average added 20 points, or less than 0.1%, and the Nasdaq composite rose 0.1%. Treasury yields also remained fairly muted in the bond market.

Can Trump still impose tariffs? Yes, but not under the fast-acting law he previously used. Top administration officials have said they expect to keep the tariff framework in place under other authorities, though alternative laws carry greater limitations on the speed and severity of Trump’s actions.

What was the impact of Trump’s tariffs? They were estimated to have an economic impact of some $3 trillion over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

What did each side argue? The Justice Department argued that a 1977 law allowing the president to regulate imports during emergencies also includes setting tariffs. The challengers argued that the law doesn’t even mention tariffs and that Trump’s use of it fails several legal tests, including one that doomed then-President Joe Biden’s $500 billion student loan forgiveness program.

The chief justice and 2 Trump appointees ruled against the president’s tariffs Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the court’s majority opinion, joined by Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, two of Trump’s three Supreme Court picks. The three liberal justices were also part of the majority.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Trump’s other appointee, wrote the main dissent, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

   The Supreme Court struck down President Donald Trump’s far-reaching global tariffs on Friday, handing him a significant loss on an issue crucial to his economic agenda.

The 6-3 decision centers on the tariffs Trump unilaterally imposed under an emergency powers law, including the sweeping “reciprocal” tariffs levied on nearly every other country.

It’s the first major piece of Trump’s broad agenda to come squarely before the nation’s highest court, which he helped shape with the appointments of three conservative jurists in his first term.

The majority found that the Constitution “very clearly” gives Congress the power to impose taxes, which include tariffs. “The Framers did not vest any part of the taxing power in the Executive Branch,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote.

“The tariffs at issue here may or may not be wise policy. But as a matter of text, history, and precedent, they are clearly lawful,” Kavanaugh wrote in the dissent.

The Latest:

Democratic senator calls on Trump administration for tariff refund plan Friday’s Supreme Court decision did not address whether businesses could get refunded for the billions they have collectively paid in IEEPA tariffs imposed by Trump. U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell, a Democrat from Washington state, is asking Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent for a plan.

“Many American businesses, especially small and medium-sized businesses, have struggled to pay these illegal tariffs and, for some, the financial strain has placed them on the brink of bankruptcy,” Cantwell wrote in a letter published Friday addressed to Bessent. “It is essential Treasury implement an expeditious and transparent process to remediate the financial harm that resulted from these illegal tariffs.”

Trump to speak about tariff ruling White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said on social media that the president would hold a news conference about the ruling at 12:45 p.m.

United Steelworkers union urges Congress to revamp the US trade system The United Steelworkers, the labor union whose members work at U.S. Steel and Cleveland-Cliffs plants, urged Congress to revamp the U.S. trade system by using tariffs “strategically.”

It said tariffs should be used to protect American workers, not to punish allies like Canada. It also called on Congress to restore funding to programs to help American workers who lose their jobs because of unfair foreign trade.

“It’s an excess of short-term thinking and free trade ideology that got us into this mess. Now, we need sustainable solutions,” the union said in a statement.

The U.S. steel industry has enjoyed a period of expansion under tariffs adopted by the Biden and Trump administrations, analysts say.

Behind the case is a nonprofit that typically allies with conservative causes. The Liberty Justice Center, which represented the businesses challenging Trump’s tariffs, is a libertarian-leaning public interest law firm with about $3 million on hand. Sara Albrecht, the group’s chairman, pledged to help small businesses navigate the refund process in a statement posted on X.

“The Liberty Justice Center’s work is just beginning,” she said.

The Supreme Court previously sided with the Liberty Justice Center in 2018 when the justices ruled that public-sector unions could not require non-member employees to pay collective bargaining fees. The group has also challenged “critical race theory” teachings in school districts and defended state school choice initiatives.

Among its donors are the Walton Family Foundation, the Republican Governors Public Policy Committee and the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund. Other funders include the Club for Growth, an influential anti-tax group, and the State Policy Network, a conservative nonprofit coalition linked to Charles and David Koch.

Major technology trade groups hail the Supreme Court decision They predicted the decision will help minimize price increases and disruptions in the intricate supply chains for the computers, smartphones, televisions and other gadgets ingrained in modern life.

“Innovation thrives on predictability, and this common-sense decision brings much-needed clarity for American businesses and consumers,” said Gary Shapiro, CEO of the Consumer Technology Association, which represents more than 2,000 companies. “Now, the government must act quickly to refund retailers and importers without red tape or delay.”

The Computer & Communications Industry Association, which represents a spectrum of technology companies employing more than 1.6 million people, also expressed hope that the decision will ease the trade tensions that have been tormenting tech.

“This Supreme Court decision caps a year of turbulence in trade policy that we are all working to adapt to. With this decision behind us, we look forward to bringing more stability to trade policy,” said Jonathan McHale, the Computer & Communications Industry Association’s vice president for digital trade.

Tariff elimination on distilled spirits could provide needed certainty for American spirits exporters Chris Swonger, president and CEO of the Distilled Spirits Council urged the Trump administration to use the Supreme Court ruling as an opportunity to return to “zero-for-zero tariffs” on spirits products with major trading partners including the United Kingdom and European Union.

“The elimination of tariffs on distilled spirits would provide much needed certainty for American spirits exporters while helping ease financial pressures on bars, restaurants and retailers at a time when affordability remains a major concern for consumers.”

Soybean farmers hope Trump will refrain from imposing new tariffs on the things they need Soybean farmers hope that they might get some relief from rising costs as a result of Friday’s ruling. The price of fertilizer, seeds, pesticides and tractors and parts have been steadily increasing starting even before Trump’s tariffs.

American Soybean Association President Scott Metzger, who farms in Ohio, said farmers hope Congress and the administration will work to open additional markets for their crops.

“Moving forward, certainty and dependable market access are essential for U.S. soy to remain competitive globally. Because farmers are caught in a cost-price squeeze and ag input costs remain high, we urge the President to refrain from imposing tariffs on agricultural inputs using other authorities,” Metzger said.

Many Americans felt Trump had overstepped on tariffs: poll About 6 in 10 Americans said Trump had “gone too far” on imposing new tariffs on other countries, according to an AP-NORC poll from January .

About 9 in 10 Democrats and roughly 6 in 10 independents said Trump had overstepped, compared to 25% of Republicans.

The tariffs have been unpopular for much of Trump’s first year back in office. Roughly half of U.S. adults said they were opposed to imposing tariffs on all goods brought into the U.S. in an AP-NORC poll from last April. Only about 3 in 10 favored them, and roughly 2 in 10 were neutral.

Possibly more worrisome for a president elected on the promise of fixing Americans’ affordability concerns, 76% in the April poll thought Trump’s tariff policies would increase the cost of U.S. consumer goods.

Which of Trump’s tariffs are being struck down by the Supreme Court? Friday’s decision upends a core set of tariffs that Trump imposed using the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA. That includes the “Liberation Day” tariffs the president slapped on nearly every country in the world last spring — as well as and other IEEPA-based levies he imposed on Canada, Mexico and China. Trump also cited IEEPA to impose additional tariffs on Brazil over the trial of former President Jair Bolsonaro, and on India over its purchases of Russian oil.

Despite Friday’s ruling, other sweeping levies remain in place. Trump used another law — Section 232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act — to slap sectoral tariffs on steel and aluminum , cars , copper, lumber and products like kitchen cabinets worldwide. And the president has plenty of other options to keep taxing imports aggressively.

Trump still has other tariff options to tax imports President Trump still has options to keep taxing imports aggressively even after the Supreme Court struck down the tariffs he imposed last year on nearly every country on earth.

The Justices didn’t buy the president’s sweeping claims of authority to impose tariffs as he sees fit. But Trump can re-use tariff powers he deployed in his first term and can reach for others, including one that dates back to the Great Depression.

“It’s hard to see any pathway here where tariffs end,” said Georgetown trade law professor Kathleen Claussen. “I am pretty convinced he could rebuild the tariff landscape he has now using other authorities.”

New York/Washington: As the US Supreme Court on Friday struck down President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs, Justice Brett Kavanaugh referred to the tariffs imposed on India for Russian oil purchases in his dissenting opinion.Trump had imposed 25 per cent reciprocal tariffs on India and an additional 25 per cent punitive tariff for Delhi's purchases of Russian oil.

While he slashed the reciprocal tariffs to 18 per cent, the 25 per cent levies imposed for Russian oil purchases were removed, with Trump noting the commitment by India to stop directly or indirectly importing energy from Moscow and purchasing American energy products.

In a 6-3 vote on Friday, the judges found that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorise the imposition of duties.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Kavanaugh dissented in the court's decision.

"As with tariffs on foreign imports historically, the IEEPA tariffs on foreign imports at issue in this case implicate foreign affairs. According to the Government, the President has leveraged the IEEPA tariffs into trade deals with major trading partners, including China, the United Kingdom, and Japan, among other countries.

"The Government says that the tariffs have helped make certain foreign markets more accessible to American businesses and have contributed to trade deals with foreign nations worth trillions of dollars," Kavanaugh wrote in his opinion in the case.

"Moreover, consistent with history and the traditional uses of tariffs, the President 'is exercising his IEEPA authority in connection with highly sensitive negotiations he is conducting to end the conflict between the Russian Federation and Ukraine'," he wrote.

"….To that end, on August 6, 2025, the President imposed tariffs on India for "directly or indirectly importing Russian Federation oil"... And on February 6, 2026, the President reduced the tariffs on India because, according to the Government, India had "committed to stop directly or indirectly importing Russian Federation oil."

"To be sure, most foreign affairs and national security actions -- whether war, international agreements, trade deals, or tariffs -- lead to significant domestic ramifications within the United States. And this case is no exception. Nonetheless, in the foreign affairs field, courts interpret statutes as written, with appropriate respect to Congress and the President and without a major questions doctrine weight on the scale against the President," he wrote.  — PTI 

New Delhi: The Congress on Friday hailed the US Supreme Court decision striking down President Donald Trump's global tariffs and said the American system of checks and balances still seems to be working.In a post on X, Congress general secretary in-charge communications, Jairam Ramesh, said, "Hats off to the US Supreme Court for striking down President Trump's entire tariff strategy! Quite an amazing decision given its ideological composition.

"A 6-3 verdict is decisive. The American system of checks and balances still seems to be working."

The US Supreme Court on Friday struck down President Donald Trump's far-reaching global tariffs, handing him a significant loss on an issue crucial to his economic agenda.

The 6-3 decision centred on tariffs imposed under an emergency powers law, including the sweeping reciprocal tariffs Trump levied on nearly every other country.

The majority found that the Constitution very clearly gives the Congress the power to impose taxes, which include tariffs. — PTI