Web Desk: US President Donald Trump sharply criticised the Supreme Court after it ruled in a case challenging his tariff policy. He called the decision deeply disappointing and said he felt ashamed of certain members of the court. He also claimed that foreign countries were celebrating the outcome but warned that their celebrations would not last.
His reaction came as the justices weighed one of the most consequential economic disputes to reach the court in years. The case centers on the legality of Trump’s Liberation Day tariffs and additional duties imposed on goods from China, Mexico and Canada. The federal government has already collected tens of billions of dollars under those measures.
The challenged tariffs significantly raised trade barriers. Duties climbed as high as 50 percent on countries such as India and Brazil. Meanwhile levies on Chinese imports reached as high as 145 percent in 2025. Businesses and trade groups argue that these sweeping measures reshaped global commerce and directly affected the US economy.
At the heart of the case lies Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The 1970s statute allows a president to regulate imports during a declared national emergency. Trump’s administration maintained that the authority to regulate importation includes the power to impose tariffs.
However the plaintiffs argue that Congress never explicitly authorised such action. They note that the law does not specifically mention tariffs or duties. Therefore they contend the executive branch exceeded its authority.
The dispute places the Supreme Court at a critical crossroads. Over the past several years the court has limited executive authority in cases involving major policy decisions. In particular the conservative majority has invoked the major questions doctrine to require clear congressional approval for actions with vast economic or political impact.
Trump’s legal team has pushed back strongly. They argue that tariff decisions fall within the president’s foreign affairs authority. Historically courts have given the executive branch greater latitude in matters involving international relations and national security.
As a result the justices must balance two competing doctrines. On one side stands the principle that major domestic policies require direct approval from Congress. On the other stands long standing judicial deference to presidential power in foreign affairs.
The outcome could redefine the limits of emergency authority in trade policy. Moreover it may shape how future presidents use economic tools to influence global markets and diplomatic relations.
Read more: Pakistan retaliates strongly to ceasefire violation by Indian Army along LoC
