Trump Vows To Implement 15% Global Tariff After Supreme Court Ruling

President Donald Trump intends to levy a 15% global tax following a Supreme Court decision Friday rejecting as unconstitutional the president's use of a 1970s-era emergency law to impose import taxes.

The Supreme Court decision nullifies a key component of his administration’s trade policy and deals a blow to the president’s ability to implement tariffs with little restriction, as other avenues to influence trade policy have procedural guardrails that are harder for the administration to work around.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh dissented in the 6-3 ruling.

"When Congress has delegated its tariff powers, it has done so in explicit terms and subject to strict limits," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority.

"Had Congress intended to convey the distinct and extraordinary power to impose tariffs, it would have done so expressly, as it consistently has in other tariff statutes."

The decision won’t kill all of Trump’s tariffs, but it eliminates the president’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to implement them. 

Trump slammed the decision in a Friday afternoon news conference, vowing to explore alternative methods to implement trade laws that are better defined.

"I can do anything I want, but I can't charge $1," Trump said.

The president said he would sign an order Friday to impose a 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows the president to enact a baseline tariff of up to 15% on all countries to address issues related to the trade deficit.

The trade statute is slightly more restrictive, as the taxes on imports may only stay in place for 150 days unless Congress votes to extend them. The president said the tariff would go into effect in three days.

Trump initially declared 10% tariff in his Friday news conference, but on Saturday increased the levy to 15%. It is slated to go into effect Feb. 24.

The 15% global tariff will be imposed on top of the non-IEEPA tariffs already in place, the president said. No president has ever invoked Section 122.

"Now I'll go the way I could have gone originally, which is even stronger than our original choice," Trump said.

More than 1,000 companies have sued in hopes of getting refunded a portion of the billions paid in tariffs, Bloomberg reported. The administration had brought in about $133B in duties under the emergency authority as of Dec. 14. 

The Supreme Court didn’t decide whether the administration is responsible for refunding collected taxes to affected businesses, leaving the door open on the issue.

In a dissenting opinion, Kavanaugh said the interim effects of the court's decision could be substantial.

"The United States may be required to refund billions of dollars to importers who paid the IEEPA tariffs, even though some importers may have already passed on costs to consumers or others," Kavanaugh wrote in the dissent. "As was acknowledged at oral argument, the refund process is likely to be a 'mess.'"

Trump argued the IEEPA gave him the power to impose tariffs unilaterally during emergencies. He taxed goods imported from China, Canada and Mexico, claiming those countries were failing to stop the flow of fentanyl into the U.S. On "Liberation Day," when the president announced sweeping tariffs on more than 100 trading partners, he said trade deficits with the rest of the world had reached an "emergency level."

A group of small businesses, including an Illinois-based toymaker and a New York-based wine importer, sued the federal government, alleging Trump’s actions were unlawful, ate into profits, forced them to lay off employees and led them to increase prices. Lower courts also ruled that Trump’s use of the IEEPA to enact tariffs was illegal.

The administration's tariffs haven't had as significant an impact on inflation as was widely anticipated when they were first implemented in early 2025, Thomas Walstrum, the principal business economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, said at a Bisnow event Thursday.

Before Trump enacted tariffs, the expectation was that inflation would be about 2% in 2025. Instead, it came in at about 2.7%.

"Instead of these tariffs potentially causing a big spike in inflation, we saw inflation stay level, and it seems like it's going to be taking time to play out over the next year," Walstrum said.

The economist said there are three main reasons tariffs didn't have as large an effect on inflation as initially expected: a lower effective tariff rate than projections, businesses absorbing the costs of the higher import rates, and the goods share of the economy being relatively small.

The effective tariff rate — the average tariff paid across all imported goods, weighted by their value — is currently between 10% and 15%, up from about 1% previously but significantly lower than the speculation that it could have reached as high as 25%, he said.

"There's been a lot of uncertainty about what the tariff policy is actually going to be, and so in that case, maybe you're not going to be so willing to raise prices for the consumer right away," Walstrum said. "A combo of the uncertainty and the lower tariff rates has made that, instead of this one-time big spike you would see in inflation, it's being spread out over multiple quarters."

Trump said his administration would also explore additional tariff options under other existing trade laws, including Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. 

Section 232 is a provision that enables the administration to enact tariffs on particular sectors to protect national security, Marc Busch, professor of international business diplomacy at the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service, told Bisnow at the start of the hearing in November.  

This includes levies on semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, steel and aluminum. 

Section 301 allows tariffs to be imposed against unfair trade practices by other nations. Alternatives include a law that allows emergency tariffs if an American industry is being harmed by another country's trade practices or retaliatory tariffs for discrimination against U.S. commerce.

Tariffs in effect include a 50% rate on steel, aluminum and various forms of copper. There is also a 10% to 25% charge on various lumber imports, along with a wide range of country-specific tariffs, adding to the cost of building materials.

The administration's trade policy has already had a sweeping impact on the country’s trade balance. The U.S. trade deficit in goods and services fell to $29.4B in October, the lowest monthly trade deficit since June 2009.

A tariff reversal could restore predictability for trade policy and ease pressure on supply chains, reducing costs for businesses, Avison Young CEO Mark Rose told Bisnow in a statement in November. That could temper the urgency of reshoring for commercial real estate but support broader economic stability, benefiting demand across industrial, retail and office sectors. 

"Rolling back tariffs helps retailers and developers alike by cutting import and construction costs, improving profit margins, restoring consumer confidence, and reigniting investment," Rose told Bisnow in an email. "Clarity in policy is always good for long-term planning and investment."

UPDATE, FEB. 20, 3:15 P.M. ET: This story has been updated to include Trump's remarks at a Friday press conference.

UPDATE, FEB. 21, 2:22 P.M. ET: This story has been updated to reflect a higher tariff rate announced Saturday.

CORRECTION, FEB. 20, 3:15 P.M. ET: This story has been updated to clarify the legality of certain tariffs.