In a lengthy dissent to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision that struck down President Donald Trump's tariffs, Justice Brett Kavanaugh insisted the taxes are "lawful" and could be imposed via other means.
The high court ruled 6-3 that Trump exceeded his authority under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) when he levied sweeping "reciprocal" tariffs and other import duties after declaring national emergencies.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, said the U.S. Constitution "very clearly" grants Congress, not the president, the power to impose taxes, including tariffs.
But Kavanaugh, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito, forcefully disagreed, arguing that the text, history, and precedent surrounding IEEPA support Trump's actions.
"Acting pursuant to his statutory authority to 'regulate … importation' under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the President has imposed tariffs on imports of foreign goods," Kavanaugh wrote.
"Statutory text, history, and precedent demonstrate that the answer is clearly yes: Like quotas and embargoes, tariffs are a traditional and common tool to regulate importation."
In his 63-page dissent, Kavanaugh wrote that the court's decision might not prevent presidents "from imposing most if not all of these same sorts of tariffs under other statutory authorities," such as the Trade Act of 1974.
Kavanaugh stressed that policy disputes over tariffs are for voters and lawmakers — not judges — to decide.
"The tariffs at issue here may or may not be wise policy," he concluded. "But as a matter of text, history, and precedent, they are clearly lawful."
"I respectfully dissent," Kavanaugh added.
The case centered on Trump's use of IEEPA after declaring national emergencies tied to drug trafficking and trade imbalances.
He imposed a 25% duty on many Canadian and Mexican imports, a 10% duty on Chinese goods, and a baseline 10% tariff on imports from most trading partners, with higher rates for dozens of countries. At one point, tariffs on Chinese goods climbed as high as 145%.
Challengers, including several Democrat-led states and small businesses, argued that IEEPA does not explicitly mention tariffs and that the administration's actions violated the "major questions doctrine," which requires clear congressional authorization for sweeping executive actions.
Roberts agreed, writing, "The Framers did not vest any part of the taxing power in the Executive Branch."
The majority also rejected the administration's argument that tariffs fall within the president's foreign affairs authority.
Kavanaugh countered that Congress reenacted the very phrase "regulate … importation" in 1977 after previous presidents, including Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, used similar statutory language to justify tariffs.
He argued that if IEEPA allows embargoes and quotas, it logically allows tariffs — calling it nonsensical to permit a total ban on imports but forbid even a minimal duty.
"This case does not involve elephants in mouseholes," Kavanaugh wrote. "This case instead involves an elephant (tariffs) in a statutory elephant hole."
The ruling does not prevent Trump from pursuing tariffs under other trade laws, and administration officials have signaled they are prepared to do so.
Trump reportedly called the decision "a disgrace" after learning of it during a White House meeting with governors.
While critics say the decision reins in executive overreach, Kavanaugh's dissent underscores that the fight over presidential tariff authority — and America's trade policy — is far from over.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Charlie McCarthy ✉
Charlie McCarthy, a writer/editor at Newsmax, has nearly 40 years of experience covering news, sports, and politics.
© 2026 Newsmax. All rights reserved.