Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas issued a blistering dissent on Friday after the high court voted 6–3 to block President Donald Trump’s use of emergency powers to impose sweeping tariffs. Thomas argued that the majority fundamentally misread both the governing statute and the Constitution’s separation of powers. He was joined in his dissent by Justices Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh, who argued that Congress clearly authorized the president to "regulate importation.
The court’s majority ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977 does not grant the president the authority to unilaterally impose taxes or duties. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that such an "extraordinary power" requires clear congressional authorization that he claims is missing from the current law. President Trump immediately slammed the decision as a "disgrace," noting that the ruling creates a "clunky" hurdle for protecting American workers from unfair foreign trade.
Thomas pointed to historical precedent to back the administration, specifically citing President Richard Nixon’s 1971 import surcharge. He noted that the same "regulate importation" language was upheld by courts decades ago and should be beyond dispute today. "The meaning of that phrase was beyond doubt by the time that Congress enacted this statute," Thomas wrote in his separate dissent.
The ruling comes as a major blow to Trump’s "Make America Wealthy Again" agenda, which utilizes tariffs to spark an American manufacturing renaissance. The president had spent weeks championing the policy as a vital tool to boost the economy, protect jobs, and bring down costs for the middle class. Despite the setback, Trump held a press conference shortly after the ruling to announce a new 10% global tariff under alternative legal authorities.
Justice Kavanaugh echoed Thomas’s concerns, stating that the court’s decision cannot be justified as a matter of simple statutory interpretation. The dissenters warned that the majority is incorrectly applying the "nondelegation doctrine" to the area of foreign trade. Thomas insisted that the Constitution allows for this type of executive flexibility when dealing with foreign threats and economic parity.
While the court has invalidated this specific use of IEEPA, the president underscored that the "Supreme Court did not overrule tariffs" in their entirety. He reminded supporters during a steel factory visit in Georgia that "without tariffs, this country would be in such trouble right now." The administration remains committed to its trade policy, shifting focus to other statutes to ensure that foreign nations stop "stripping" American wealth.