Supreme Court strikes down tariffs

SCOTUSblog

by Amy Howe

February 20, 2026

AI-Generated Deep Dive Summary

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that President Donald Trump's tariffs exceeded his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The justices determined that IEEPA does not grant the president the power to impose tariffs, as the law lacks specific references to such actions. The decision hinged on a textual reading of IEEPA, which allows the executive branch to regulate imports during national emergencies but does not explicitly authorize tariff imposition. Chief Justice John Roberts emphasized that the law's use of the word "regulate" does not equate to taxing or imposing tariffs, arguing that Congress must delegate such significant economic powers with clear intent. The case originated from lawsuits filed by small businesses and states affected by Trump's tariffs, which were imposed through a series of executive orders. Lower courts had initially sided with the challengers, but the government continued collecting tariffs during the Supreme Court review. The majority opinion, joined by Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, also invoked the "major questions doctrine," asserting that Congress must explicitly delegate authority for decisions of vast economic significance. Roberts noted that prior administrations have not interpreted IEEPA to allow tariff imposition, further reinforcing the court's decision. In a dissenting opinion joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh argued that tariffs are a traditional tool of import regulation and that Trump had the authority under IEEPA. He acknowledged that the ruling might not significantly limit future presidential tariff actions, as other statutes could justify similar measures. However, Kavanaugh expressed concern that the decision sets a precedent limiting executive authority and could create legal uncertainty for future trade policies. This landmark ruling underscores the delicate balance between executive power and congressional delegation in matters of national security and economic policy. The court's decision not only invalidates Trump's tariffs but also raises questions about the broader limits of presidential authority under IEEPA and other statutes. Legal experts view this case as a significant precedent for future debates over executive powers, particularly in times of national emergency. For businesses and importers, the ruling could have far-reaching implications, potentially requiring refunds for tariffs paid during the period in question. The outcome also highlights the ongoing tension between branches of government over the scope of presidential authority in international trade matters.

Verticals

legalpolitics

Originally published on SCOTUSblog on 2/20/2026