Washington, D.C., February 21, 2026 – In a significant setback to President Donald Trump's trade agenda, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Friday, February 20, 2026, that the president lacks constitutional authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose broad, sweeping tariffs on imports from nearly every trading partner. The 6-3 decision, authored by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., declared that IEEPA—a 1977 law designed for national emergency sanctions—does not grant the executive branch the power to levy tariffs, which the Court emphasized is a core congressional prerogative to tax and regulate commerce.
The ruling stemmed from consolidated cases, including Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump and related challenges, where businesses, importers, and states contested Trump's use of IEEPA to justify tariffs imposed after declaring national emergencies related to trade deficits, illicit drug inflows, and supply chain vulnerabilities. These measures included at least 10% duties on most global imports, 25% on many from Canada and Mexico, and elevated rates on Chinese goods tied to fentanyl concerns and broader trade imbalances. The Court held that IEEPA's language allowing the president to "regulate... importation" falls short of authorizing taxation via tariffs, noting no explicit mention of duties, no historical precedent for such use, and no clear congressional delegation of this power.
Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the majority, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson: "The president asserts the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope... IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties... We hold that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs." Justice Gorsuch concurred, invoking the major questions doctrine to argue that such sweeping authority requires explicit congressional intent. Justices Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and Samuel Alito dissented, with some expressing concern over economic disruption and refund implications.
President Trump responded defiantly during a White House press conference hours after the opinion's release. "The Supreme Court's ruling on tariffs is deeply disappointing, and I’m ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed, for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country," he stated. Trump singled out justices—including two he appointed, Gorsuch and Barrett—for criticism, calling their votes "unpatriotic," "disloyal to our Constitution," and even an "embarrassment to their families." He accused the Court of lacking resolve on national economic security and suggested foreign interests may have influenced the outcome, though he provided no evidence.
The decision invalidates the bulk of tariffs collected under IEEPA, which U.S. Customs data indicate exceeded $130 billion (approximately £96.3 billion) since Trump's return to office in January 2025. Uncertainty persists regarding refunds to importers, with the ruling remanding aspects to lower courts, including the U.S. Court of International Trade, to address jurisdictional and remedial issues. Economists estimate potential refunds in the tens or hundreds of billions, posing fiscal challenges for the federal government.
Trump has aggressively advanced protectionist trade policies since January 2025, defending them as corrective measures against decades of perceived exploitation. In October 2025, he announced a 100% tariff on Chinese goods, and earlier statements framed tariffs as essential to counter "our country and its taxpayers have been ripped off for more than 50 years." World Trade Organization Director-General Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala warned in prior months that such measures risked "the greatest disruption in trade in 80 years."
In a swift countermove, Trump announced and signed a new temporary 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which addresses balance-of-payments deficits and allows short-term duties (up to 150 days) without invoking emergency powers. The proclamation, posted on Truth Social and effective almost immediately, applies "over and above our normal tariffs already being charged" and targets trade imbalances. Administration officials described it as one of several "powerful alternatives" to pursue trade goals, with hints of potential embargoes or further adjustments under other statutes like Section 301 or 338.
The ruling has drawn mixed reactions. Some congressional Republicans, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, praised it for reaffirming Congress's constitutional role in trade and taxation, calling Trump's circumvention "illegal." Business groups and free-trade advocates hailed the decision as a check on executive overreach, while supporters of Trump's "America First" policies decried it as undermining U.S. leverage against unfair trade practices.
Global markets reacted with volatility, as the invalidation of IEEPA tariffs could ease import costs but the new 10% levy introduces fresh uncertainty. Trading partners, including the European Union, China, Canada, and Mexico, have previously signaled retaliatory measures, and WTO consultations may intensify.
The case underscores ongoing tensions over executive authority in trade policy, with the Court emphasizing separation of powers. As lower courts handle refund logistics and the administration explores new avenues, the ruling marks a pivotal moment in Trump's second-term economic strategy—curtailing one tool while prompting creative, if constrained, alternatives.
