US President Donald Trump has announced a new universal 10% tariff on imports, moving quickly to replace a set of global trade taxes that were struck down by the Supreme Court of the United States.
The president criticised the court’s ruling as “awful,” accusing several justices who opposed his policy of acting irresponsibly. The decision, delivered in a 6–3 vote, found that Trump had exceeded the authority granted to him under federal law when imposing the earlier tariffs.
The ruling represents a significant win for US states and businesses that challenged the measures, potentially entitling them to billions of dollars in refunds. At the same time, it has added further uncertainty to an already fragile global trade environment.
Speaking at the White House on Friday, Trump warned that any refund process would likely be lengthy and contested in court. He said he expected legal battles over repayments to drag on for years. The president also insisted he would continue pushing his trade agenda by relying on alternative legal powers.
“We have other tools—very strong tools—and we’ll come out stronger because of it,” Trump said.
Court limits presidential tariff powers
The legal dispute centred on sweeping import duties announced last year that applied to goods from nearly every country. What began as tariffs on imports from Mexico, Canada and China later expanded to dozens of trading partners during what Trump branded “Liberation Day” in April.
To justify the move, the White House relied on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a statute that allows the president to regulate economic activity during national emergencies. However, companies and state governments argued that the law does not explicitly authorise tariffs.
Those challenging the policy said Congress never intended to hand the president unlimited taxing powers or allow him to dismantle existing trade agreements unilaterally.
In the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts agreed, writing that when Congress has delegated tariff authority in the past, it has done so clearly and with firm restrictions.
“If Congress meant to grant such an extraordinary power, it would have said so directly,” Roberts wrote.
The ruling was supported by the court’s three liberal justices and two conservative justices appointed by Trump—Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch. Conservative justices Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and Samuel Alito dissented.
Trump responded angrily, saying he was “deeply disappointed” in the Republican-appointed justices who voted against him, calling them unpatriotic and accusing them of betraying the Constitution.
Markets rise as businesses welcome ruling
US stock markets climbed following the decision, with the S&P 500 closing about 0.7% higher. Many businesses said the ruling brought a sense of relief after months of uncertainty.
Beth Benike, owner of Busy Baby products in Minnesota, said the decision felt like “a huge burden lifted,” noting that her company manufactures goods in China and had been hit hard by the tariffs.
Nik Holm, chief executive of Terry Precision Cycling, one of the firms involved in the lawsuit, said the ruling offered hope but warned that supply chains would take time to recover.
New tariff imposed under rarely used law
Despite the court setback, Trump moved swiftly to reimpose tariffs using a different legal mechanism. On Friday, he signed a proclamation invoking Section 122, a little-used provision that allows tariffs of up to 15% for a maximum of 150 days unless Congress intervenes.
The new 10% tariff is scheduled to take effect on 24 February.
The order includes a wide range of exemptions, covering certain minerals, fertilisers, natural resources, pharmaceuticals, electronics, vehicles, and selected agricultural goods such as beef and oranges. In many cases, however, the exemptions are broadly defined and lack detailed clarification.
Canada and Mexico will continue to benefit from exemptions under the USMCA, which covers most goods traded between the three countries.
A senior White House official said countries with existing trade deals—including the UK, India and the EU—will now face the uniform 10% tariff instead of previously negotiated rates. Those nations, the official added, are still expected to honour concessions made under earlier agreements.
Refunds remain uncertain
The US government has already collected at least $130bn in tariffs under the IEEPA, according to official data. Hundreds of companies—including Costco, Alcoa and food importer Bumble Bee—have filed lawsuits seeking refunds.
However, the Supreme Court ruling does not directly address how repayments should be handled, leaving that issue to the Court of International Trade.
In his dissent, Justice Kavanaugh warned the outcome would create a “mess.” Economists also cautioned that legal costs could deter smaller firms from pursuing refunds.
Diane Swonk, chief economist at KPMG US, said the expense and complexity of litigation could make recovery difficult. “It’s understandable to feel relieved,” she said, “but expectations should be tempered.”
Steve Becker, head of the law firm Pillsbury, said businesses would benefit most if the government established a refund process that did not require court action. “Most companies will likely get their money back eventually,” he said. “The real question is how long that will take.”