The recent decision by the US Supreme Court to strike down most of the global tariffs imposed by Donald Trump marks a turning point in the country's trade policy and sends shockwaves through its trading partners worldwide. The high court concluded that the White House abused its emergency powers to impose widespread tariffs on virtually all of its trading partners, including those in Europe.
Far from abandoning his protectionist strategy, Trump has reacted harshly against the judges and announced a new 10% global tariff —which he has already begun to implement—based on other legal grounds. The message to Europe, Spain, and the rest of the member states is clear: the legal overreach has been corrected, but Washington's tariff pressure has not disappeared ; it has only changed form.
What exactly has the U.S. Supreme Court decided?
In a 6-3 vote , the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Trump overstepped his authority by using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA, 1977) as a pretext to impose massive, “reciprocal” tariffs on dozens of countries. The law grants the president broad powers in situations of national security or economic emergency, but does not explicitly mention the imposition of tariffs.
Chief Justice John Roberts , in the majority opinion, emphasized that when Congress grants the Executive Branch the power to tax imports, it does so " clearly and with limits ," something that is not the case under the IEEPA. He also stressed that no president in nearly half a century had used that provision to establish trade tariffs of such magnitude, reinforcing the idea of an abuse of presidential power.
The decision invalidates the tariffs known as the " Liberation Day " tariffs, announced on April 2, 2025, which imposed levies of between 10% and 50% on imports from most countries. It also suspends some of the surcharges applied under the pretext of combating fentanyl trafficking from countries such as Mexico, Canada, and China. The ruling does not affect other tariffs based on different laws, such as those related to steel, aluminum, or automobiles imported under national security regulations.
Two justices appointed by Trump himself , Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, joined the majority bloc along with the three liberal justices and Roberts, forming an unusual alliance in a court with a conservative majority. Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh voted against the decision, arguing that the IEEPA did allow for tariffs and warning that the ruling would not prevent the president from using other similar legal tools.
A historic legal setback… and Trump’s immediate Plan B
For the White House, the ruling represents the biggest legal setback of Trump's second term and a serious blow to his economic agenda, which has made tariffs a defining feature. The president himself had publicly warned that a defeat in the Supreme Court would be " a complete disaster " that could force the country to repay enormous sums collected through the invalidated tariffs.
The ruling opens the door to a wave of claims from companies and importers who believe they paid unconstitutional taxes. Organizations like We Pay the Tariffs , which represents hundreds of businesses, and chains like Costco had already initiated legal battles and are now demanding “full, rapid, and automatic” refunds of the taxes collected under the IEEPA. Some estimates suggest potential refunds could range between $170.000 billion and $240.000 billion, although the final figure will depend on the decisions of the lower courts.
Trump, however, has made it clear that he has no intention of backing down. In an appearance from the White House , he called the ruling “ deeply disappointing ” and accused the justices who supported the decision of being an “embarrassment” to the country. He also suggested that the court had been influenced by foreign interests and a minority “political movement,” further deepening the institutional clash between the executive and judicial branches.
Almost simultaneously, the president announced a new 10% global tariff on all imports, which he presented as a “fully legal” alternative. To this end, the administration is now relying on Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 , which allows for tariffs of up to 15% to be imposed for a maximum period of 150 days without congressional approval. Trump himself has suggested that he could raise that tariff to 15% “with immediate effect.”
During that time, the White House plans to initiate additional investigations under other legal frameworks—such as Sections 301 and 232 or even older provisions of the 1930 Tariff Act—to provide lasting support for its tariff scheme. In other words, the 10%-15% tariff would serve as a temporary bridge while the legal framework is rebuilt.
Control of presidential power and legal precedent
Beyond the immediate economic impact, the Supreme Court's decision is interpreted as a reminder of the principle of separation of powers in the United States, particularly regarding who has the final say on fiscal and trade matters. The Constitution reserves the so-called " power of the purse "—control over taxation and spending—to Congress, and the court held that the Executive Branch cannot usurp this function by using emergency legislation as a shortcut.
Constitutional law experts emphasize that this sets a clear precedent regarding the use of emergency powers in the economic sphere: from now on, it will not be possible to justify a global tariff war by invoking an “economic emergency” under the IEEPA. Any attempt to impose widespread tariffs must be based on other trade laws or explicit authorizations from Congress.
The ruling is deliberately restrictive: the court does not delve into the legal alternatives the government could use, but rather simply closes the door on the IEEPA as a basis for massive, across-the-board tariffs . In Roberts' words, accepting the expansive interpretation advocated by the White House would have meant a “ radical transformation of presidential authority ” in trade policy.
This ruling has been celebrated by the Democratic opposition. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer hailed it as a “ victory for American consumers’ wallets ” and accused Trump’s tariffs of driving up the cost of living, putting pressure on small businesses and farmers, and increasing economic instability. Representatives of small companies that sued the government have also hailed the ruling as a victory against the concentration of power in the White House.
From an institutional perspective, analysts agree that the ruling confirms that effective checks and balances continue to operate in the American system, even with a conservative-majority Supreme Court and a president who was committed to maximizing his executive powers.
Financial markets, companies and macroeconomic effects
The market reaction to the ruling was immediate. Expectations of potential tariff easing boosted stock markets, particularly in sectors exposed to cheap imports, while US Treasury yields rose as investors priced in the possibility of lower tax revenues from the tariffs. The dollar index briefly declined before stabilizing.
In reality, tariffs have had an ambiguous effect on US economic performance. On the one hand, they have significantly increased customs revenue , which peaked at over $30.000 billion per month in 2025 and has served as a partial buffer against the high fiscal deficit . On the other hand, they do not appear to have clearly reduced the trade deficit : the overall imbalance in goods remains at record highs and has only changed marginally in recent years.
For many importing companies , the tariffs acted as an additional tax passed on to higher final prices . Large consumer and industrial groups—manufacturers of toys, textiles, appliances, machinery, automotive, and home furnishings—have reported pressure on margins and have restructured their supply chains, seeking suppliers in less heavily penalized countries.
Business organizations such as the National Retail Federation and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have welcomed the ruling as an opportunity to alleviate costs and promote greater growth, provided the refund process is streamlined . In fact, they argue that refunds should be used as an incentive to reinvest in operations, jobs, and more competitive pricing.
However, economists from banks and research centers warn that the positive effect could be temporary . The Administration has a range of instruments at its disposal—Sections 301, 232, 122, and other tariff provisions—with which it can rebuild the wall of tariffs , perhaps with a different distribution among countries and sectors, but maintaining a high level of protectionism compared to previous years.
Impact and reading from Europe and Spain
In Europe, the Supreme Court's decision and Trump's swift response are viewed with a mixture of relief and concern . On the one hand, it is seen as positive that the US justice system has curbed the excessive use of emergency powers and reaffirmed the need to respect the rule of law . On the other hand, the almost simultaneous announcement of a new 10% global tariff confirms that the trade risk for the EU remains very real.
French President Emmanuel Macron has emphasized the role of checks and balances in democracies , celebrating the existence of a court capable of blocking unilateral decisions. At the same time, he has called for trade relations to be governed by fairer rules and not left at the mercy of abrupt changes dictated from Washington. His message, which has resonated in Brussels, combines institutional recognition with a clear call for strategic prudence.
Italy, for its part, has convened a meeting with exporting companies to assess the impact of the new 10% tariff on its sales to the US, especially in key sectors such as automotive, machinery, fashion, and agri-food. The meeting, chaired by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, aims to quantify the risks and explore possible coordinated responses at the national and European levels.
For Spain, the situation is complex. During the most intense phase of the trade war, numerous Spanish products faced tariffs averaging around 15% , which increased their cost in the US market. Sectors such as agri-food, wine, olive oil, industrial products, and consumer goods have been particularly attentive to these changes. The partial elimination of tariffs offers a potential window of respite, but the stated intention to maintain a global tariff of 10% and use other legal instruments keeps the situation highly uncertain.
Analysts in Europe emphasize that the ruling could also become an opportunity for dialogue between Brussels and Washington. The EU had been the target of specific tariff threats, ranging from automobiles to goods linked to technological or climate disputes. The new legal situation could serve to reopen talks on a more stable trade relationship, although Trump's insistence on tariffs as a political tool suggests difficult negotiations are likely.
Latin America, Asia and the reconfiguration of global trade
Although the European focus is clear, the Supreme Court's decision also has profound implications for Latin America and Asia , whose evolution will ultimately impact the value chains that connect with Spanish and European companies. Countries like Brazil and Mexico were among those most affected by reciprocal tariffs and measures related to combating fentanyl.
In Brazil, the average effective tariff on its exports to the United States reached over 20% , compared to previous levels below 3%. The elimination of tariffs based on the IEEPA partially alleviates this pressure, but the new 10% global tariff and the possibility of additional sectoral measures limit the scope of relief. In Mexico, the elimination of certain fentanyl-related tariffs provides some relief, although tariffs on automobiles and components —key under the USMCA—remain in effect through other legal means.
In Asia, the reaction has been mostly one of waiting and caution . Governments like Japan 's , which reached an agreement to reduce reciprocal tariffs on Japanese goods (including automobiles), are confident that the ruling will not jeopardize the commitments made. Official sources have indicated that bilateral investment projects will continue due to their strategic importance, but acknowledge that regulatory uncertainty has increased.
Taiwan , which had secured a reduction in tariffs from 20% to 15%, anticipates a limited impact from the new 10% general tariff, but insists that its priority will be protecting the stable development of its economy . In South Korea , the government maintains that the bilateral trade agreement remains in place, although it acknowledges increased uncertainty surrounding exports to the US market.
Other Asian countries, such as Indonesia and Malaysia, have opted to strengthen the diversification of their trade relations and maintain open talks with Washington. The idea is to avoid becoming overly reliant on a single market in an environment where protectionism is gaining ground and rules can change relatively quickly.
Spain and the EU face a scenario of high tariffs and uncertainty
From a European and Spanish perspective, the Supreme Court ruling does not imply an automatic return to the " trade normality " that existed before Trump's tariff offensive. Most analyses agree that, even if the average effective US tariff rate is temporarily reduced—some estimates place it at around 6,5% compared to the current 13,6%—the level will still be much higher than at the beginning of 2025 and could, in any case, rebound once the new legal instruments are consolidated.
For Spanish companies with interests in the United States, the main challenge is not just the specific level of the tariff, but regulatory volatility . Rapid changes in regulations, threats of new sectoral levies, and the possibility that certain industries—for example, automotive, wine, agri-food products, or industrial goods —require a more sophisticated diversification and risk management strategy.
International trade experts suggest that, in the short term, many companies may accelerate shipments, taking advantage of the uncertainty surrounding the implementation dates of the new tariffs and the possibility of refunds. At the same time, trends that began in recent years are consolidating, such as the partial relocation of production, the strengthening of regional supply chains, and increased focus on alternative trade agreements.
In this context, both the European Union and member states like Spain face the dilemma of tightening their own trade policies or opting for a combination of defensive firmness and strategic openness. The response from Brussels will have a direct impact on European companies and on the EU's ability to influence the redesign of the global rules of the game.
The new chapter opened by the US Supreme Court does not mark the end of the era of high tariffs, but it does set an important limit on the unchecked use of emergency powers and forces Trump to operate within a more constrained legal framework. For Europe and Spain, the emerging scenario is one of a still-tense trade relationship with the United States, characterized by high tariffs, significant legal uncertainty , and international trade that appears to be heading toward a prolonged phase of increased protectionism and reconfiguration of value chains.
