Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump's 'Liberation Day' Tariffs, But Alternatives Remain

Multiple laws could allow former president to reassert aggressive trade powers despite court ruling.

Published on Mar. 1, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

The Supreme Court has ruled that President Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose sweeping "Liberation Day" tariffs was unconstitutional, as the Constitution gives Congress, not the president, authority over tariffs. However, the decision may not be the final word, as multiple legal avenues remain that could allow Trump to continue imposing trade restrictions, including the Trade Expansion Act, the Trade Act of 1974, and even Depression-era statutes like the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act.

Why it matters

The Supreme Court's ruling is a significant check on the president's trade powers, but it also highlights the complex web of laws that can be used to enact tariffs, even against the court's wishes. This case raises broader questions about the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches when it comes to trade policy and the extent to which a president can unilaterally impose tariffs.

The details

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the "framers gave [tariff] power to Congress alone, notwithstanding the obvious foreign affairs implications of tariffs." However, the court's decision may not be the final word, as Trump could try to use other laws like the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, the Trade Act of 1974, or even the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 to impose tariffs. These laws provide various avenues for the president to unilaterally impose trade restrictions, though some have been more extensively tested in court than others.

  • On 'Liberation Day' in 2025, Trump cited the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to declare an emergency situation and impose sweeping tariffs.
  • In September 2026, a federal appeals court ruled against thousands of companies that challenged tariffs on China imposed under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.

The players

John Roberts

Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, appointed by George W. Bush.

Clarence Thomas

Supreme Court Justice, appointed by George H.W. Bush.

Brett Kavanaugh

Supreme Court Justice, appointed by Donald Trump.

Samuel Alito

Supreme Court Justice, appointed by George W. Bush.

Howard Lutnick

U.S. Commerce Secretary, appointed by Donald Trump.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“We must not let individuals continue to damage private property in San Francisco.”

— Robert Jenkins, San Francisco resident (San Francisco Chronicle)

“Fifty years is such an accomplishment in San Francisco, especially with the way the city has changed over the years.”

— Gordon Edgar, Grocery employee (Instagram)

What’s next

The judge in the case will decide on Tuesday whether or not to allow Walker Reed Quinn out on bail.

The takeaway

This case highlights the ongoing tension between the executive and legislative branches over trade policy, as well as the complex web of laws that can be used to impose tariffs. Despite the Supreme Court's ruling, the Trump administration may still have multiple avenues to pursue aggressive trade actions, raising questions about the long-term implications for the U.S. economy and global trade relations.