Full Analysis Summary
Supreme Court tariff ruling
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that the administration lacked statutory authority under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose broad, peacetime import tariffs.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion.
Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett joined the liberals.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh and Samuel Alito dissented.
The decision invalidated many of the IEEPA‑based "reciprocal" tariffs and held that IEEPA "does not authorize the President to impose tariffs," a conclusion the court tied to the constitutional allocation of taxing and tariff power to Congress.
President Donald Trump reacted sharply, calling the ruling "deeply disappointing," "deeply wrong," and "a disgrace," and called out the justices in public remarks.
Coverage Differences
Tone
Sources vary in the tone they ascribe to the Court’s decision and to Trump’s response: Western mainstream outlets (CNBC, NBC) report the legal holding and quote Trump's terse criticisms like "deeply disappointing" and "disgrace," while EL PAÍS (Western Alternative) emphasizes harsher rhetorical attacks by Trump, reporting he called some justices "ashamed" and accused the majority of being "swayed by foreign interests." GreekReporter and NJ stress the constitutional allocation of tariff power to Congress and note the 6–3 split and dissents.
Legal framing
Some outlets (GreekReporter, dw, NJ) foreground the constitutional point that Congress—not the president—has the power to levy taxes and tariffs and note the court’s reliance on the major questions doctrine, while others focus more on the immediate practical outcome for the administration’s tariff program and Trump’s reaction.
10% global tariff plan
Within hours of the decision, the White House signaled it would terminate the struck-down IEEPA duties, and President Donald Trump announced he had signed an executive order creating a new 10% 'global tariff' (referred to in some reports as 'Section 122') that he said would take effect 'almost immediately' and that would run for about 150 days.
The White House described limited exclusions for certain food items, key minerals, and goods already subject to other tariffs.
Different outlets described the new measure variously, calling it a signed order already in place (CNBC, dw, EL PAÍS) and, in contrast, a proposed alternative the president would use to pursue his trade agenda (NBC).
Coverage Differences
Timing/Status
CNBC and dw report Trump "signed an executive order" imposing a 10% global tariff to take effect "almost immediately" or at a stated time, while NBC frames it as a proposed alternative he said he will use, reflecting slight differences in whether reporters treat the duty as already signed and operational or as a policy the president announced he would pursue.
Scope details
Some reports (CNBC, EL PAÍS, dw) include a 150‑day time limit and describe exclusions for particular categories, while others emphasize the measure would be layered on top of other existing levies or that the administration planned to retain unrelated tariffs (EL PAÍS notes Section 232 and Section 301 remain).
Legal and fiscal consequences
Legal and fiscal consequences were a central concern in coverage, with the majority referencing the major questions doctrine and emphasizing that Congress must clearly authorize policies with large economic effects.
Outlets flagged uncertainty about whether importers would receive refunds for billions already collected.
Reporters and analysts noted conflicting signals on refunds and fiscal exposure: EL PAÍS said the decision "raises the prospect" of returning "tens of billions" collected under the tariffs, The Jerusalem Post cited a Penn‑Wharton estimate that IEEPA‑based collections exceed $175 billion, and NJ and GreekReporter noted the majority left unresolved the question of refunds and practical steps for returning payments.
Coverage Differences
Refund estimates
Coverage differs on the magnitude and certainty of refund liabilities: EL PAÍS reports the ruling "raises the prospect" the government may have to return "tens of billions," The Jerusalem Post cites a Penn‑Wharton estimate that collections exceed $175 billion, while NJ emphasizes the Court did not decide whether companies could get refunds, leaving the question open.
Doctrinal focus
GreekReporter and dw highlight the Court’s application of the major questions doctrine and the constitutional allocation of tariff power to Congress, framing the decision as a structural limitation on executive authority, while some outlets focus more on practical next steps for the administration and markets.
Market and business reactions
Markets and business groups reacted unevenly.
Several outlets reported positive or modest market moves after the ruling, with GreekReporter noting the S&P 500 was up about 0.5% and NBC saying markets reacted positively.
Trade groups warned the decision was a legal check rather than a policy reset and cautioned that governments might use different, potentially disruptive tools.
Dw cited the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and other business groups expressing concern that governments could resort to alternate measures.
CNBC and NBC observed that businesses which had challenged the tariffs welcomed the outcome.
Coverage Differences
Market reaction
GreekReporter quantifies a modest market uptick (S&P 500 up ~0.5%), NBC and CNBC describe markets reacting positively, while other coverage emphasizes caution and the potential for different trade tools despite immediate market moves.
Business groups' framing
Some reports emphasize business relief (NBC, CNBC) while dw and The Jerusalem Post warn about broader international economic uncertainty and strains in trading relationships resulting from the tariff program.
Responses to decision
Reports differ on political and strategic responses to the decision.
EL PAÍS and dw detail Trump’s combative public remarks and his stated intent to pursue other legal and executive avenues, including praising dissenting justices and saying there are ways to 'circumvent' the decision.
NBC and CNBC highlight his pledge to use other authorities to impose new global duties.
NJ and GreekReporter stress institutional consequences, saying the decision limits executive trade authority and prompts questions about the future shape of U.S. trade policy.
Some reports describe international reaction as cautious.
Coverage Differences
Presidential rhetoric
EL PAÍS quotes Trump's strongest language — saying some justices were "ashamed" and accusing the majority of being "swayed by foreign interests" — while other mainstream outlets report his criticism with shorter quotations such as "deeply disappointing" or "disgrace," demonstrating differences in emphasis and choice of quoted language across sources.
Policy trajectory
Dw and EL PAÍS report that the White House plans to retain some existing tariffs (Section 232 and Section 301) and that Trump may pursue fresh investigations or legal steps, whereas NJ and GreekReporter emphasize the structural limitation the ruling places on unilateral executive tariff authority and the broader policy implications.