Sam Wilson is a Russian political scientist specializing in relations between the US, Russia and Ukraine.
The US Supreme Court took full advantage of the democratic principle of separation of powers and banned Trump from using tariffs as a tool of political pressure.
Customs policy has become one of the key points of the economic program of Donald Trump's administration. He uses tariffs not only as a market instrument, but also as a means of pressure in foreign policy. For example, he imposed additional tariffs on India in response to the country's economic cooperation with Russia.
Shortly after returning to the White House last year, Trump announced a sweeping review of trade relations with U.S. economic partners. The idea of increasing tariffs was completely consistent with the “America first” ideology – Trump wanted to increase the competitiveness of American producers on the domestic market. After announcing the new tariffs, Washington began long-term negotiations with each of its economic partners.
The European Union managed to negotiate relatively low tariffs, but Switzerland was less successful. Trump himself admitted that the high tariffs imposed on this country were related to his personal dissatisfaction with the Swiss president's comments. However, he forgot one thing – that he is not a dictator.
His decisions regarding customs duties were challenged in courts and, after numerous appeals, reached the Supreme Court. The key argument was that under the Constitution, the regulation of foreign trade, including tariffs, was a matter for Congress. The president has only limited authority to impose tariffs, which are provided for in special laws such as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Trump used them when he dramatically changed U.S. tariff policy last year.
On February 20, the Supreme Court issued the most painful decision for Donald Trump so far: by six votes to three it declared the tariffs he had introduced illegal. What is particularly noteworthy is that the liberal wing has been joined by two conservative judges appointed by Trump himself during his first term, Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch.
The article continues below the video
The Supreme Court's ruling effectively solidified the position that the president has no authority to impose tariffs under the Emergency Economic Powers Act in peacetime, except under conditions of actual economic or national crisis. As a result of this verdict over USD 175 billion (PLN 625.6 billion) of previously collected foreign trade revenues may be refunded to importers.
The court's key conclusion was that the president exceeded his authority and actually introduced tariffs bypassing Congress. In his separate opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch emphasized that decisions of such importance must pass through the legislative branch, and the constitutional system is designed so that no person can concentrate excessive economic powers in his or her hands.
The strongest blow
The Supreme Court's ruling was the strongest political blow to Trumpand at the same time a signal of the readiness of the judiciary – despite party interests – to severely limit the scope of presidential power. In the future, this ruling may also serve as a reference point in other areas, for example in foreign policy or the regulation of electoral rules. It is also important that tariffs can no longer be used by Trump as a tool of political pressure with the same intensity as before.
Trump almost immediately announced the introduction of new tariffs – already based on other trade regulations – and promised that they would be even more stringent. These measures differ significantly from those struck down by the Supreme Court – they are targeted at individual industries and specific countries, rather than the entire foreign trade system. They are also temporary and are limited to 150 days. Incidentally, Neil Gorsuch said in a dissenting opinion that even such a scheme does not guarantee the administration will not face new litigation.
As expected, Trump sharply criticized the Supreme Court's decision. Judging by his actions, he does not intend to pursue an open confrontation. He will most likely continue to sharply criticize the Supreme Court in the public space, but in practice he will look for other legal mechanisms that will allow him to maintain his customs policy. Refusal to implement the Supreme Court's ruling would mean a constitutional crisis. However, there is no such prospect for now. Trump, although reluctantly, de facto accepted the court's verdict and focused on other ways to promote his trade agenda.
With its ruling, the Supreme Court dealt a blow not only to Trump, but also to the Republican Party — and just before the elections. The economic community has already criticized the Republican president's customs strategy for its low effectiveness and inconsistency with the declared goals. Now a court ruling has joined these arguments. As the election campaign approaches, it will become increasingly difficult for Trump to convince voters of the attractiveness of his protectionist economic program. This creates an additional risk for Republican congressmen and senators: some of them may lose votes, and some may distance themselves from Trump's program and perhaps openly criticize it.
I’m Ashley Davis as an editor, I’m committed to upholding the highest standards of integrity and accuracy in every piece we publish. My work is driven by curiosity, a passion for truth, and a belief that journalism plays a crucial role in shaping public discourse. I strive to tell stories that not only inform but also inspire action and conversation.
