The Supreme Court handed President Trump a significant legal setback Friday, ruling 6-3 that his tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act exceeded presidential authority. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion. Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, both Trump first-term appointees, sided with the majority.
Trump wasted no time. He called a White House press briefing on short notice and announced he would sign an order that same day imposing a 10 percent global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, "over and above our normal tariffs already being charged." He also confirmed that all national security tariffs under Section 232 and existing Section 301 tariffs remain in place.
The IEEPA tariffs are gone. The trade agenda is not.
According to Breitbart, Justice Brett Kavanaugh dissented, writing that he "firmly" disagreed with the court's decision. But more importantly, his opinion did something unusual for a dissent: it laid out, in detail, the alternative statutory paths available to the executive branch for imposing tariffs.
Kavanaugh cited the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (Section 232), the Trade Act of 1974 (Sections 122, 201, and 301), and the Tariff Act of 1930 (Section 338). He noted that these routes may require "a few more procedural steps" than IEEPA, but the authority exists. Trump seized on Section 122 within hours.
The President did not hide his appreciation. He said Kavanaugh's "stock has gone so up" and lavished praise on the justice:
"I would like to thank Justice Kavanaugh for… frankly, his genius, and his great ability."
That kind of public praise for a sitting justice is unusual. Then again, so is a Supreme Court ruling that reshapes trade policy in the middle of an active tariff regime.
If Kavanaugh received the laurels, Gorsuch and Barrett received something else entirely. Trump made clear from the briefing podium that the ruling stung, and that the sting was personal:
"The Supreme Court's ruling on tariffs is deeply disappointing, and I'm ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed for not having the courage to do what's right for our country."
He went further, drawing a pointed contrast between the liberal justices and his own appointees who broke ranks. Of the liberal bloc, Trump offered a grudging compliment: "You can't knock their loyalty." The implication was unmistakable. Others on the bench, in his view, lacked that same quality.
"Others think they're being politically correct, which has happened before, far too often with certain members of this court… when in fact, they're just being fools and lap dogs for the RINOs and the radical left Democrats."
He also called the justices in the majority "very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution," and suggested the court had been "swayed by foreign interests and a political movement that is far smaller than people would ever think."
Conservatives watching this saga should keep their eyes on the mechanism, not the emotion. The IEEPA argument always carried legal risk. Using an emergency economic powers statute to impose broad, sustained trade tariffs was an aggressive reading of executive authority, and six justices, including two reliable conservatives, weren't buying it.
That matters less than it might seem, because the alternative statutory framework is substantial. Section 232 tariffs are already in place and untouched by this ruling. Section 301 tariffs remain active. And now Section 122 enters the picture, with Trump moving to impose a 10 percent global tariff under its authority on the same day the court acted.
Kavanaugh's dissent functions less as a lament and more as a blueprint. He essentially told the administration: you have the tools; they just require different steps. The administration listened.
The anger directed at Gorsuch and Barrett taps into a long-running conservative grievance about Republican-appointed justices. The pattern is well-known to anyone who has watched the court for the last three decades. Republican presidents appoint justices who, once seated, drift toward the legal establishment's center of gravity. Democratic presidents appoint justices who never drift at all.
Trump named it plainly. The liberal justices vote as a bloc. You cannot knock their loyalty. Meanwhile, conservative appointees occasionally break formation in the name of judicial restraint, textual interpretation, or institutional credibility. These are defensible legal philosophies. They are also, from the perspective of a president who appointed those justices to uphold a certain constitutional vision, deeply frustrating.
Whether Gorsuch and Barrett got the law right is a question legal scholars will litigate for years. Whether their ruling catches conservative voters off guard is not a question at all. It doesn't. This has happened before.
Trump noted that the State of the Union is days away, set for Tuesday at the U.S. Capitol, with all nine justices expected to attend. That setting, with the justices seated in the front row while the President addresses the nation, now carries an unmistakable edge.
The last time a president publicly rebuked Supreme Court justices at a State of the Union address, it became one of the most memorable moments in modern political history. Trump has already said his piece from the briefing room. Whether he says it again from the House chamber, with the justices sitting fifteen feet away, will be one of the most-watched moments of the speech.
The tariffs under IEEPA are dead. The trade war is very much alive. And the distance between this president and the court he built just got a lot wider.