The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that President Donald Trump exceeded his authority when he imposed a broad set of tariffs that reshaped global trade, dealing a significant blow to a signature tool of his economic agenda and setting off a scramble in Washington and overseas to assess what comes next.
Within hours, the White House signaled it would pursue alternative measures to preserve the tariff regime and even expand it. Appearing at a news conference alongside U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer, Trump said an additional duty would be imposed on top of current tariffs, framing the move as necessary to protect American industry while the administration studies the court’s ruling.
- Advertisement -
Pressed on whether companies that paid duties under the now-curbed tariff authority would be entitled to refunds, Trump said such claims would have to be “litigated,” and he criticized the court for failing to spell out how its decision applies to potential repayments. The lack of immediate clarity on refunds could open a new legal front as importers and trade groups weigh their options.
The judgment prompted a cautious international response, with many governments holding off on definitive statements while they parse the implications. In Brussels, the European Commission moved quickly to acknowledge the decision but stopped short of drawing conclusions.
“We take note of the ruling by the US Supreme Court and are analysing it carefully,” Olof Gill, a spokesman on trade for the European Union, said in a statement. “We remain in close contact with the US administration as we seek clarity on the steps they intend to take in response to this ruling.”
For European exporters, the central question is whether the EU-U.S. trade deal agreed in Scotland last July will be replaced, or whether Washington will press ahead with a 10% tariff on top of existing duties, as the president has suggested. Either path would reshape the cost calculus for companies selling into the American market, from machinery makers to food producers, and could trigger retaliatory steps if new measures run afoul of existing agreements.
The Supreme Court’s decision removes a key legal foundation for a swath of duties that the administration had used to upend established trade flows. While the ruling’s full scope will take time to filter through federal agencies and the courts, the immediate effect is a period of uncertainty for businesses with goods en route to U.S. ports and for supply chains built around the previous tariff structure.
Trade lawyers said the unresolved refund question could spur a wave of claims and further litigation, particularly if the administration seeks to layer new duties onto products that were already taxed under the now-curbed framework. Companies that adjusted sourcing, pricing and contracts to account for the tariffs now face hard choices about whether to hold prices, renegotiate or delay shipments until rules settle.
The political stakes are just as high. The court’s rebuke constrains a central feature of Trump’s trade posture while inviting a test of how far the White House can go in reasserting leverage through other mechanisms. For allies and rivals alike, the message is mixed: a legal setback for the president paired with a vow to intensify tariff pressure.
As with many policy moves involving Trump, the full ramifications may not be clear for some time. In the meantime, exporters to the United States face another round of uncertainty, with critical decisions hinging on how—and how quickly—the administration implements its next steps.
By Abdiwahab Ahmed
Axadle Times international–Monitoring.
