United States: The Awakening of the Supreme Court

In a decision on February 20, the Supreme Court invalidated by six votes to three the customs duties imposed by Donald Trump in 2025 based on the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The Court reiterated that customs duties are not covered by this import regulation, they are taxes falling under the jurisdiction of Congress, and that trade deficits do not represent an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to the United States.

This setback marks a turning point for Donald Trump’s presidency as well as for the conservative revolution, which aims to transform America into an illiberal democracy. After procedural judgments and interim orders, this decision is the first to address the substance. It reinforces the rule of law by affirming the powers of Congress – systematically ignored in trade matters but also in financial, diplomatic, and military areas – such as the judicial oversight of the executive branch established since 1803 by the Marbury v. Madison decision.

Putting an end to circumventing laws

The consequences of this decision are significant. In this midterm election year, the Supreme Court puts an end to the Trump administration’s strategy of circumventing laws and outpacing the judicial system by invoking emergencies. This comes as important decisions are pending on the independence of the Fed, the powers of the states, freedom of expression, and birthright citizenship.

While the discretion to impose tariffs, which was at the heart of Donald Trump’s economic policy and diplomacy, is now limited. The president can certainly resort to other bases, such as Section 232 of the 1962 law or Sections 201 and 301 of the 1974 law, but within a highly constrained framework.

The establishment of a new global tariff of 10% under Article 122 of the 1974 law is subject to a 150-day deadline and its legality is highly questionable. The administration is counting on a temporary procedure that will conclude before it is deemed illegal.

The reduction of tariffs from 18.6% to 13.6% on average will reduce revenues intended to finance tax cuts for the wealthy and businesses, and the increase in the defense budget from $900 to $1.5 trillion.

At the same time, thousands of companies have filed lawsuits to seek the reimbursement of the $175 billion in improperly collected duties by the Treasury. This will increase the deficit to between 7 and 8% of GDP and raise tensions on the US debt, approaching 140% of GDP by 2030.

Devastating chaos and uncertainty

However, the Supreme Court falls short of dispelling the uncertainties posed by the Trump administration on American democracy and the economy, as well as on trade and global stability.

Firstly, while the Court deemed the use of the IEEPA illegal, it did not address the extent of presidential powers. The Trump administration draws inspiration from Carl Schmitt, a legalist of the Third Reich, to interpret Article 2 of the Constitution according to the theory of the unitary executive. This theory gives the president unlimited decision-making powers over the federal administration, budget, and agents, including in national security, immigration, and trade.

The illegality of the tariffs imposed under the IEEPA leaves specific regimes intact, such as the 50% surtax on steel and aluminum, along with the new global tariff of 10% valid for 150 days, leading to devastating chaos and uncertainty for businesses and challenging households.

The National Bureau of Economic Research confirmed that 94% of illegal tariff increases were borne by American companies and consumers, amounting to $1,751 per household, with no possibility of reimbursement. This did not prevent the trade deficit from reaching a new record in 2025, at $1.241 trillion.

The awakening of the Supreme Court encourages civil society

In sum, China achieves a complete victory in the trade war launched by Donald Trump. Following the abandonment of punitive duties on rare earth embargoes and massive sales of US debt securities, export rights are normalized, dropping from 39% to 15%. Only the European Union suffers a defeat, as the Commission inexplicably reaffirms its commitment to the agreement imposed by Trump on Ursula von der Leyen.

The Supreme Court waited to have an indisputable legal case and took advantage of a critical moment to remind the Trump administration of the law, showing the resilience of the rule of law and the independence of judges. This encourages civil society to wake up.

The United States reminds us that the rule of law is both a central issue and the key to the struggle between democracy and authoritarianism, as seen in the shifts towards fascism in Italy in 1922 and Nazism in Germany in 1933. Liberty cannot exist without a strong constitutional justice upheld by independent judges who prioritize their mission over their views and the law over their passions.