Washington D.C. – In a significant blow to presidential authority, the Supreme Court today ruled against the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping global tariffs. The 6-3 decision, announced Friday, February 20, 2026, curtails the power of the executive branch to unilaterally enact tariffs based on national security concerns, a tactic frequently employed during the current administration. The ruling does not affect all existing tariffs, but it invalidates those implemented specifically under IEEPA.
The case centered on the question of whether IEEPA, originally intended to address national emergencies like wartime blockades, could be used to justify tariffs as a matter of economic security. The Court found that the law does not grant the president such authority. This decision marks a clear delineation of power between the executive and legislative branches regarding trade policy, reaffirming Congress’s constitutional authority over tariffs and commerce.
President Donald Trump, responding to the ruling at a news conference this afternoon, called the decision “deeply disappointing” and expressed “shame” over some of the justices’ reasoning. He immediately announced plans to impose a temporary 10% global tariff under the Trade Act of 1974, a different legal framework than the one struck down by the Court. “Without tariffs, the rest of the world would laugh at us because they’ve used tariffs against us for years and took advantage of us,” Trump stated in November, according to reports. He argued that tariffs are vital for U.S. Economic security.
The Court’s Reasoning and Dissent
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, stated that the president had asserted “extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration and scope,” but had failed to point to any statutory authorization within IEEPA to support such action. The Court’s opinion emphasizes that Congress holds the constitutional power to regulate international trade, and any delegation of that power must be explicit.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in a dissenting opinion, argued that although the ruling may not significantly restrict future presidential tariff authority, it would create a “mess” for the government. Kavanaugh predicted the decision would necessitate billions of dollars in refunds to businesses that had paid tariffs imposed under IEEPA. He maintained that the text, history, and precedent supported the Trump administration’s position, adding that the tariffs “may or may not be wise policy,” but are “clearly lawful.”
Impact and Reactions
The ruling is expected to have significant implications for U.S. Trade policy. According to data from October to mid-December, tariffs imposed under IEEPA represent approximately one-third of the total revenue generated from Trump-imposed tariffs. The decision will likely trigger a wave of refund requests from businesses that paid these tariffs.
Candace Laing, president and CEO of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, characterized the ruling as a legal decision, but cautioned that it doesn’t necessarily signal a reset of U.S. Trade policy. “Canada should prepare for new, blunter mechanisms to be used to reassert trade pressure, potentially with broader and more disruptive effects,” Laing said in a statement.
The House of Representatives previously attempted to constrain the president’s tariff authority, voting on February 12, 2026, to revoke tariffs imposed on Canada under IEEPA. As reported by the Council on Foreign Relations, this vote was enabled by a quirk in the law and highlighted the ongoing struggle between Congress and the president over trade policy.
What’s Next?
The immediate future will likely involve legal challenges and administrative adjustments as the government navigates the implications of the Supreme Court’s decision. The administration’s move to impose a 10% global tariff under the Trade Act of 1974 will undoubtedly face scrutiny and potential legal challenges. Congress may seek to clarify and strengthen its authority over trade policy to prevent future executive overreach. The potential for refunds, estimated to be in the billions of dollars, will similarly be a significant point of contention and administrative burden.
What are your thoughts on the Supreme Court’s decision? Share your comments below and join the conversation.
