Los Angeles regional port authorities Friday hailed the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that struck down President Donald Trump’s so-called reciprocal tariffs, finding that such power exceeded his authority under the law.
Long Beach and Los Angeles port officials have said customers and logistics partners depend on clear, predictable trade policy to plan investments, move cargo efficiently and keep goods flowing to American businesses and consumers.
Port of Los Angeles Executive Director Gene Seroka said the court’s decision impacts about two-thirds of the tariffs that have been collected to date, and opens new avenues of uncertainty.
“First, there is not yet clarity on whether there will be refunds from the U.S. Treasury Department on tariffs already paid,” Seroka said in a statement. “Second, the administration has already announced a new 10% global tariff in the wake of the ruling with no indication as to when that will take effect.”
He noted the court’s decision came in the middle of Lunar New Year, and most factories in China and across Asia are closed for the holiday. Those factories are not expected to reopen until at least next week.
“The Port of Los Angeles and its network of supply chain partners stand ready to manage any fluctuation in cargo and get it through the system swiftly without delay,” Seroka said.
Port of Long Beach CEO Noel Hacegaba emphasized that an orderly approach to tariffs helps businesses plan, and ports like Long Beach can maximize their contributions to the U.S. economy. He maintained the port — as one of the nation’s largest gateways — will continue to work with partners to enhance operations, which will support the broader supply chain, support the 2.7 million jobs tied to the facility, and boost U.S. competitiveness.
“We hope the ruling brings greater certainty to the supply chain,” Hacegaba said in a statement. “Freight can’t wait — and certainty helps keep it moving.”
On Friday, in a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court majority found it was unconstitutional for the president to set and change tariffs because that power solely belongs to Congress.
Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.
The Supreme Court did not rule out allowing importers to claim refunds on any IEEPA tariffs they may have paid.
Trump had used the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, referred to as IEEPA, to impose sweeping tariffs on U.S. trade partners, citing what his administration has described as unfair trade with other nations. The tariffs were a large part of Trump’s economic agenda, which aims to boost manufacturing, raise revenue and pay down the national debt.
In response, Trump announced he would impose a global 10% tariff while his staff explores other methods to impose trade policies. The new tariffs would be restricted to 150 days. He angrily denounced the Supreme Court’s ruling, which he called “deeply disappointing.”
“This was an important case to me, more as a symbol of Economic and National Security, than anything else,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform. “The Good News is that there are methods, practices, Statutes, and other Authorities, as recognized by the entire Court and Congress, that are even stronger than the IEEPA TARIFFS, available to me as President of the United States of America and, in actuality, I was very modest in my `ask’ of other Countries and Businesses because I wanted to do nothing that could sway the decision that has been rendered by the Court.”
The federal government estimated the reciprocal tariffs would have generated about $3 trillion to lower the national debt.
Trump implemented double-digit reciprocal tariffs on several countries in April.
The most recent estimates from U.S. Customs and Border Protection showed that some $142 billion will have been collected from tariffs enacted under IEEPA authority over the course of 2025, according to The Yale Budget Lab, a nonpartisan policy research center.
Without IEEPA tariffs, consumers will face an overall average effective tariff rate of 9.1%, which remains the highest since 1946 excluding 2025, according to the Yale Budget Lab. That figure rate would have been 16.9%, if IEEPA tariffs remained in place.
Researchers anticipate that price levels will rise by 0.6% in the short run, representing a loss of about $800 for the average household and $400 for households at the bottom of the income distribution. With IEEPA tariffs, the price level would have risen to 1.2%
The Yale Budget Lab expects a temporary positive fiscal impact from IEEPA refunds, and a slight slowdown in unemployment. The unemployment rate is estimated to be about 0.3 percentage points higher by the end of 2026 due to remaining tariffs.
If IEEPA tariffs had not been struck down, in 2026 the unemployment rate would have been twice as large, researchers say.
Alan Morrison, lead counsel for Consumer Watchdog’s amicus brief in the lawsuit challenging Trump’s tariffs, called the ruling a “resounding victory for the principles of separation of powers.”
Morrison, an adjunct professor at George Washington University Law School, said in a statement the decision “returns to Congress the question of whether tariffs are good for America and, if so, how much and on what imports, where it belongs.”
He emphasized that the Supreme Court rejected Trump’s claim that IEEPA “allowed him to impose massive taxes on American businesses and consumers, in whatever amount he decided, for whatever products he selected, and for however long he preferred.”
William Pletcher, litigation director for Consumer Watchdog, added the decision was a decisive victory for customers.
“The court made clear that no president can use emergency powers as an end-run around Congress’s exclusive taxing power. Americans cannot be taxed by executive fiat,” Pletcher said in a statement.