appConfigEntityId

bodyType

customContents

entityId

entityUuid

isVideo

articlePageQuery

article

articleSchemaContent

content

hooksArticlePageAdvertisementConfigArticle

hooksArticlePageFloatingButtonConfigArticle

appConfig

filter

json

liveArticle

Khushboo Razdan

Bochen Han

Xinmei Shen

Lucy Quaggin

Mark Magnier

In a consequential decision with billions of dollars on the line, the US Supreme Court on Friday upheld a lower-court ruling striking down President Donald Trump’s tariffs, coming just as the White House confirmed his visit to Beijing from March 31 to April 2.
The South China Morning Post had exclusively reported the trip dates last week.
By invalidating tariffs imposed under emergency presidential powers, the decision removes a powerful tool the White House had used to pressure Beijing, potentially weakening Washington’s bargaining position. It also complicates Washington’s trade negotiations worldwide, even as some countries have already signed deals with the US.
Trump on Friday slammed the ruling as “deeply disappointing”, saying he was “ashamed of certain members of the court” and that some justices were “disloyal and unpatriotic”.
“They also are a, frankly, disgrace to our nation, those justices,” he said in a press briefing. He added that in his opinion, the court “has been swayed by foreign interests and a political movement”.
The administration pivoted quickly on Friday, with Trump announcing new 10 per cent global tariffs “effective immediately” under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. That law grants the president limited, temporary authority to impose import restrictions to deal with balance-of-payments emergencies.


The new tariff applies to all trading partners for up to 150 days. Any extension beyond the period would need congressional approval – a fact that Trump challenged on Friday by saying he has the “right to do tariffs”.
In a statement to the South China Morning Post, a White House official clarified that countries that struck trade deals with the president, such as Britain, India, the European Union, and Japan, will now be tariffed at the global 10 per cent tariff.
The official called the measure “temporary”, saying that the administration will be pursuing other legal authorities to implement more appropriate or pre-negotiated tariff rates.
“Until then, we expect all countries to continue abiding by their trade deal commitments on reducing trade barriers and other concessions, which have not changed,” the official added.
According to the latest Yale Budget Lab analysis, the Supreme Court’s invalidation of emergency tariffs slashed the effective rate on Chinese imports by nearly two-thirds. The 10 per cent fentanyl-related and baseline “reciprocal tariffs” on China are gone, though other tariffs imposed under the Trade Act of 1974 remain in place.
Reacting to the ruling, the Chinese embassy in Washington stressed that bilateral economic relations were “mutually beneficial in nature”.
“China’s position on the economic and trade issues between China and the US is consistent and clear. Tariffs and trade wars do not serve any party’s interest,” said embassy spokesperson Liu Pengyu.
Tariff ruling complicates China talks, trade agenda intact
Brett Fetterly of The Asia Group, a consultancy in Washington, said the ruling complicates upcoming US-China talks by “weakening tariff leverage and raising the risk that any moves to backfill reciprocal tariffs with alternative measures are seen as escalatory by the Chinese”.
Wendy Cutler, senior vice-president at the Asia Society Policy Institute and a former Acting Deputy US Trade Representative, cautioned that the decision does not eliminate Trump’s ability to pursue an assertive trade agenda.
“I think come April, it’s going to be pretty clear that he still has that substantial authority, and he can still hit these countries, and that these deals, [many of which] have anti-China provisions, still remain in place,” she said.
Brendan Kelly, a fellow at the Asia Society Policy Institute, contended that the ruling’s impact on US trade with China will be smaller than with other US trading partners, as the US Trade Representative’s Section 301 investigation into China remains a powerful tool, particularly due to its existing inquiry on China.
The 301 investigation, initially completed in 2018 and updated by US President Joe Biden’s administration in 2024, “already gives USTR significant flexibility to raise or adjust tariffs”, Kelly said.
Other analysts said the high court’s decision curbs Trump’s ability to wield tariffs as a blunt geopolitical tool.
Peter Harrell, a visiting scholar at Georgetown Law School and a former Biden White House official, said the ruling makes it “much harder for him to use a magic tariff sharpie to threaten tariffs for geopolitical purposes” and will “bring more order and discipline to the tariff process”, in a social media post.
But Inu Manak, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, said little is likely to change in ongoing negotiations “because US trading partners were willing – even before the tariffs were put in place – to negotiate with the administration”.
“At the end of the day, Southeast Asian leaders are deeply pragmatic; they recognise the scale of the US market and the quality and staying power of US investments,” said Ambassador Brian McFeeters, president of the US-Asean Business Council, in a statement to the South China Morning Post.
Major legal blow to Trump’s executive tariff powers
The 6-3 decision by the nine-justice conservative majority Supreme Court is the most significant legal setback yet for an administration that has broadly pushed for Trump’s expansive view of executive power.
The court held that Trump’s invocation of a “national emergency” under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) was not justified and affirmed the previous decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
The IEEPA is a 1977 law allowing a US president to impose economic measures during a national emergency to address an “unusual and extraordinary threat”.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion. Roberts, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson, agreed that the IEEPA does not grant the president tariff power and stressed that the power of taxation belongs exclusively to Congress.
Three members of the court’s conservative bloc, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh, dissented.
“The tariffs at issue here may or may not be wise policy. But as a matter of text, history, and precedent, they are clearly lawful,” Kavanaugh said in his dissent. He noted that the emphasis on congressional authority was a “red herring” and that the question was whether Congress had delegated powers to the president.
The court challenge was filed last year by a group of small businesses and 11 US states led by Oregon. The petitioners contested both Trump’s “Liberation Day” reciprocal tariffs announced in April 2025 and the 20 per cent tariffs he ordered in February and March that year over fentanyl production and trafficking.
Victor Owen Schwartz, plaintiff in the case and founder of V.O.S. Selections, a family-owned wine and spirits business, welcomed the decision.
“These duties were not like past tariffs set by Congress, which we could plan around. These new tariffs were arbitrary, unpredictable and bad for business,” he said in a statement.


Refund uncertainty as alternatives emerge
The ruling paves the way for massive refunds of well over US$100 billion already paid by importers, though the US president suggested on Friday that the refunds may not be imminent. Noting that the refunds were not discussed in the Supreme Court opinion, he said that they “will end up being in court for the next five years”.
The US president added that he has at his disposal other possible ways of raising import tax revenue, including Sections 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, and 338 of the Trade Act of 1930. But these provisions, like Section 122, are meant to redress unfair trade and national security concerns and require a more deliberative process that cannot be applied so easily at the president’s whim.
Still, in a speech made at the Economic Club of Dallas on Friday, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the department estimates show that the use of Section 122 authority, combined with potentially enhanced Sections 232 and 301 tariffs, will result in “virtually unchanged tariff revenue in 2026”.
On Capitol Hill, Democrats were quick to celebrate the ruling, reflecting the court’s emphasis that imposing tariffs was a power that resides squarely with Congress. A social media account for Democrats on the House Committee on Ways and Means, which has jurisdiction over tariff matters, cheered the decision, writing: “Trump never had the authority to unilaterally jack up costs by hundreds of dollars on the American people.”
Last week, the House of Representatives passed a resolution seeking to overturn Trump’s tariffs on Canada, with six Republicans joining Democrats in support.
Congressional Republicans, meanwhile, defended Trump’s approach while acknowledging that Congress had a role to play going forward.
“No one can deny that the President’s use of tariffs has brought in billions of dollars and created immense leverage for America’s trade strategy … Congress and the Administration will determine the best path forward in the coming weeks,” said House Speaker Mike Johnson in a social media post.
Republicans also signalled they would continue backing tariffs on China. In a statement, Representative John Moolenaar, the Republican chair of the House Select Committee on the Communist Party, urged Congress to revoke China’s permanent normal trade relations status in light of Friday’s ruling.
“China continues to engage in predatory trade practices that hurt American workers, hollow out our manufacturing base and threaten our national security. Tariffs on China level the playing field for Americans,” Moolenaar said.


China and the US can make nice, if not peace

Xi ends 3-day Trump visit with promise to meet again in November in China – as it happened

The Chinese roots of ‘gung-ho’ as Trump and Xi look to shared history

AI war, Taiwan and translation: SCMP answers your questions from Xi-Trump summit

US-China trade war

US Supreme Court rules against Trump’s sweeping tariffs ahead of China visit

US President Donald Trump delivers remarks on so-called reciprocal tariffs during an event at the White House last April. Photo: AFP

Why US tariff refunds are now a very real possibility … and a giant ‘mess’

Illustration: Lau Ka-kuen

John Ellis, president of Optics For Hire, which designs laser and related systems. Photo: Handout

Josh Salazar, CEO of Dirtbag Brands, works on a vehicle. His company makes accessories for off-road vehicles. Photo: Handout

Co-owner of Tennessee-based Vol Case and Container, Matteo Valles, right, and two employees, with a box of military equipment being shipped to Europe. Photo: Handout

Majority of US Supreme Court justices appear to question Trump’s power over tariffs

A protester holds a sign outside the US Supreme Court on Wednesday in Washington. Photo: Reuters

Protesters stand outside the Supreme Court on Wednesday in Washington. Photo: AP

Trump tariffs: the Supreme Court case that could change global trade as we know it

US President Donald Trump’s controversial tariff strategy is being challenged in a landmark US Supreme Court case. Oral arguments will begin on Wednesday. Photo: Reuters

Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski is the only Republican lawmaker involved in the lawsuit against the Trump administration. Photo: AP

US asks Supreme Court to overturn ruling that bars Trump’s tariffs

The Donald Trump administration said in its appeal that “the stakes in this case could not be higher”. Photo: AP

News

Diplomacy

China

Economy, Trade & Business

World

Decision threatens administration’s trade agenda; casts shadow on Xi-Trump summit as some China tariffs wiped out before Beijing talks


Decision threatens administration’s trade agenda; casts shadow on Xi-Trump summit as some China tariffs wiped out before Beijing talks.


US Supreme Court rules against Trump’s sweeping tariffs ahead of China visit

.css-1c6uqr6{color:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-size:inherit;font-family:inherit;line-height:inherit;overflow-wrap:break-word;}Decision threatens administration’s trade agenda; casts shadow on Xi-Trump summit as some China tariffs wiped out before Beijing talks

Decision threatens administration’s trade agenda; casts shadow on Xi-Trump summit as some China tariffs wiped out before Beijing talks