Supreme Court Blocks Tariffs Hours After Trump Bragged They Wouldn’t

Rolling Stone

by Ryan Bort

February 20, 2026

AI-Generated Deep Dive Summary

The Supreme Court has ruled 6-3 against President Donald Trump’s international tariff policies, striking down large portions of his economic agenda. The court found that Trump exceeded his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a law from 1977 meant to allow the president to regulate certain aspects of international trade during declared national emergencies. Chief Justice Roberts emphasized in the majority opinion that the president’s tariff powers are not unlimited and must be explicitly authorized by Congress. The ruling marks a significant defeat for Trump’s signature second-term policy, which imposed hundreds of punitive tariffs on global trade partners. The court’s decision highlights concerns about the expansion of presidential authority over economic policies. Gorsuch, another conservative justice, agreed that major decisions affecting taxes and tariffs should go through the legislative process to ensure deliberation and compromise among elected representatives. Roberts pointed to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which assigns Congress the sole power to “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,” reinforcing the idea that such decisions are a congressional responsibility. The ruling also underscores the constitutional balance between executive and legislative powers, ensuring that no single branch overreaches its authority. Trump reacted strongly to the decision, calling it a “disgrace” while meeting with governors at the White House. Despite the court’s rejection, Trump has consistently defended his tariff policies, claiming they protect American industries and national interests. However, economists have widely criticized these tariffs, arguing that they effectively harm American consumers by increasing costs on imported goods. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer celebrated the ruling as a win for American consumers, noting that it limits the president’s ability to impose unilateral economic measures. The case has broader implications for U.S. trade policy and constitutional law. It raises questions about the scope of presidential authority in areas traditionally managed by Congress,

Verticals

cultureentertainment

Originally published on Rolling Stone on 2/20/2026