Washington, D.C. — In a landmark 6–3 decision on February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that former President Donald Trump exceeded his legal authority when he imposed sweeping global tariffs using emergency powers — striking down the core of his trade policy as illegal.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, saying the president lacked “clear congressional authorization” to impose broad import taxes under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The ruling underscores that only Congress has the constitutional power to levy tariffs, a check on executive authority that could reshape U.S. trade policy for years.
What the Court Decided
- The decision invalidates the bulk of Trump’s tariffs — some of which imposed tariffs on nearly all imports from major trading partners.
- Justices found that using emergency powers to impose revenue-generating tariffs was beyond the scope of IEEPA’s intent.
- The ruling could oblige the government to refund billions in tariff revenues collected under the now-struck measures, a legal and administrative challenge.
The court reaffirmed the constitutional principle that tariffs and taxes are clearly legislative powers, not executive ones — checking a major executive action that had lasted through most of Trump’s second term.
Political and Economic Impact
Trump had made aggressive tariff policies a centerpiece of his economic strategy, aimed at reducing trade deficits and protecting U.S. industries. However, critics — including several states and business groups — challenged his authority to bypass Congress, arguing that trade and tax powers rest with the legislative branch.
The tariffs had already sparked diplomatic friction and economic uncertainty worldwide, influencing markets in Europe, Asia, and North America. Economists warned that such broad duties raised costs for American companies and consumers while straining trade relationships.
Reactions from Washington and Beyond
- Trump allies condemned the ruling as politically motivated, arguing it undermines the presidency’s ability to act swiftly in global economic challenges. They suggested the administration may pursue new legal pathways for limited tariff authority.
- Opposition leaders hailed the decision as a constitutional victory that reinforces checks and balances, preventing unilateral economic actions without clear congressional mandate.
- Several states, particularly those with industries hurt by retaliatory tariffs, welcomed the decision as a relief for local jobs and economic stability.
Looking Ahead
The decision does not block all future tariff actions, but it significantly limits presidential power absent clear statutory backing from Congress. Lawmakers are now under pressure to clarify — through new legislation — how future administrations can address trade imbalances or economic emergencies without overstepping constitutional boundaries.
Globally, trade partners and markets will be closely watching Washington’s next moves. The ruling is expected to reshape U.S. trade relations and economic policy just as global supply chains and geopolitical tensions remain fragile.