The US Supreme Court has delivered a major setback to President Donald Trump’s ambitious trade agenda by striking down his sweeping global tariffs in a landmark 6-3 ruling on February 20, 2026. Declaring the tariffs illegal, the Court emphasized that the power to impose taxes—including tariffs—rests exclusively with Congress under the US Constitution, not the President acting unilaterally.
Background on Trump’s Tariff Strategy
During his second term, Trump imposed broad tariffs starting in April 2025 (often referred to as “Liberation Day” measures). These included:
A baseline 10% tariff on imports from nearly every country worldwide.
Higher rates, such as 34% on goods from China.
25% tariffs on specific imports from Canada, Mexico, and China, justified partly by concerns over fentanyl trafficking and national security.
Trump invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977 to declare national emergencies related to trade deficits, drug inflows, and foreign threats. This allowed him to “regulate importation” without congressional approval. Over the past year, these measures generated more than $200 billion in revenue for the US government (some estimates cite around $130–200 billion).
The tariffs faced immediate legal challenges from a coalition of 12 US states (including New York, Illinois, California-related ones like Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, and Vermont) and small businesses. Lower courts, including the Court of International Trade and the Federal Circuit, had already ruled against them, finding that IEEPA does not explicitly authorize tariffs.
The Supreme Court’s Decision
After hearing arguments in November 2025, the Supreme Court ruled decisively that IEEPA does not grant the President authority to impose tariffs. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, joined by Justices across ideological lines (including some conservative appointees like Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, alongside the liberal justices).
The Court reasoned:
Tariffs are a form of taxation, a core congressional power.
IEEPA allows emergency regulation of commerce but lacks clear language or limits for imposing duties.
The US is not in a perpetual state of war or emergency justifying such broad presidential action against every trading partner.
Not all Trump-era tariffs were affected—steel and aluminum duties under separate laws remain intact. However, the invalidated ones include the global reciprocal tariffs and fentanyl-related levies.
Dissenting were Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Brett Kavanaugh (the latter appointed by Trump). They argued the measures addressed legitimate foreign policy and national security concerns, such as trade imbalances and issues like India’s purchases of Russian oil.
Trump’s Immediate Response
Just three hours after the ruling, Trump held a press conference and announced a new 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. This provision allows temporary tariffs (up to 15%) for 150 days to address large trade deficits—offering a workaround but with stricter limits and justification requirements.
Trump lambasted the decision as a “stain on the country,” calling some justices “fools,” lacking courage, and even “unpatriotic.” He claimed foreign countries exploiting the US were “dancing in the streets” but vowed it wouldn’t last. On potential refunds for the collected billions, he said no final decision had been made—it could drag through courts—and warned of chaos, disrupted trade deals, and economic fallout if refunds were forced.
Regarding India, Trump reassured that the existing trade deal with PM Narendra Modi (whom he called a good friend) remains unchanged, with no immediate impacts mentioned.
Broader Implications
This ruling reinforces congressional authority over trade policy and limits expansive use of emergency powers, potentially curbing future presidents’ unilateral actions. Economically, it creates uncertainty: businesses are already pursuing refunds, which could strain the Treasury if ordered. Diplomatically, it may complicate ongoing negotiations and trade agreements.
Politically, the decision highlights tensions between the executive and judiciary—even in a conservative-leaning Court (6-3 Republican appointees). Trump’s quick pivot to alternative legal tools shows his determination to press forward on “America First” trade protectionism.
The saga underscores ongoing debates about presidential power in an era of global economic challenges. While one chapter closes, the tariff battle is far from over.
