The United States Supreme Court ruled 6 votes to 3 based on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), signed in 1977 and aimed at crisis situations.
The Court found that the president did not have the authority to impose broad tariffs on imports from practically all US trading partners based on this provision, in a decision that represents a strong setback for one of the main economic policies of the current term and opens a new front of legal and fiscal uncertainty.
But what does this really mean for the world and Brazil? See below everything that is known so far.
Take advantage of the stock market rise!
What did the Supreme Court decide?
By a majority of 6 to 3, the ministers concluded that IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose generalized tariffs.
In the majority opinion, the President of the Court, John G. Roberts Jr., stated that the White House’s interpretation attributed excessive weight to terms of the law to support a broad taxing power. According to him, based on two words separated by 16 others in one of the sections of the law — “regulate” and “import” — “the president claims independent power to impose tariffs on imports from any country, on any product, at any rate, for any period.” And he concluded: “These words do not bear such weight.”
According to the international press, .
Continues after advertising
Was there disagreement?
Yes. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh voted against the majority, joined by Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
He wrote that “the text, history and precedents” show that the law was used appropriately. And he stated: “Like quotas and embargoes, tariffs are a traditional and common instrument for regulating imports.”
Kavanaugh also warned that any return of amounts collected could generate administrative “chaos” for the US Treasury.
In theory, yes. The decision invalidates the legal basis used to support global tariffs imposed under IEEPA, including so-called “reciprocal” tariffs, which started at 10% for all trading partners.
Although the decision does not necessarily affect all tariffs, it impacts measures aimed at specific countries under the same emergency justification.
Other tariffs applied based on different legal provisions, such as those on steel and aluminum, were not affected by the judgment.
Continues after advertising
However, the American government has already said that it may resort to other measures to try to maintain at least part of them.
Can Trump recreate the tariffs another way?
Experts point out that the president can resort to other legal instruments, such as Section 122 of the Commerce Act of 1974 and Section 338 of a 1930 trade law.
The administration has already indicated that it may seek other legal avenues to replace the dropped tariffs. Gustavo Sung, chief economist at Suno Research, recalls that Trump has already mentioned the existence of a “Plan B” if the Supreme Court ruled against the government. “In view of this, it will be essential to monitor developments and follow the government’s next actions”, he recommends.
Continues after advertising
A survey by Goldman Sachs shows that 78% of investors expected that at least part of the tariffs would be blocked by the Court. Still, most expect the US average effective rate to decline only slightly this year, suggesting an expectation of replacing part of the tariffs with other instruments.
Will the government have to return the money collected?
The Supreme Court did not answer this question.
According to the New York Timesthe U.S. Treasury has collected about $240 billion in tariff revenue since April 2, 2025, a date Trump called “Liberation Day.”
Continues after advertising
The consultancy Capital Economics estimated that, if reimbursement is necessary, the cost could reach around US$120 billion, equivalent to approximately 0.5% of American GDP. .
Goldman Sachs research of more than 200 investors shows that only 30% expect the decision to lead to refunds. The institution estimates, however, that importers could receive around US$150 billion over the next few years.
How did the “tariff” start?
In February and March 2025, Trump invoked IEEPA to impose tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico, citing fentanyl trafficking as a national emergency.
Continues after advertising
on most commercial partners, with a minimum additional rate of 10%.
Brazil was initially subject to the 10% tariff, then faced , effective from August and . In November, the general 10% tariff was removed, with higher rates remaining for certain products. Later, .
How is the market reacting?
After the decision, the markets reacted positively.
intraday in Brazil. Already oe as .
For Sidney Lima, analyst at Ouro Preto Investimentos, the decision “reduces an important component of uncertainty in international trade by limiting the unilateral use of emergency-based tariffs”. According to him, this helps to alleviate risk premiums, favors flows to emerging markets and reduces exchange rate volatility.
Could the US economy benefit?
Yes and no. On the one hand, Goldman Sachs identified a majority expectation of a milder tariff policy in 2026, with a slight drop in the average rate. However, JPMorgan assesses that there may be a high level of economic policy uncertaintywhich could put pressure on the Treasury premium, reducing demand for longer-maturity securities.
Additionally, Suno’s Sung highlights that the White House relied on revenue from tariffs to finance expenses, which may require review of fiscal projections.
What is the impact for Brazil?
For André Matos, CEO of MA7 Negócios, the measure “tends to improve the competitiveness of Brazilian exporters in the American market” and reduce part of the uncertainty that affected global risk appetite.
Sidney Lima states that Brazil gains institutional predictability to negotiate, although this does not eliminate the need for commercial diversification.
The reduction of tariffs as well, reducing the weight of the tariff issue on the bilateral agenda.
