Supreme Court Decision on Tariffs 2-23-26

On February 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that President Donald Trump's sweeping global tariffs were illegal, striking down his use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose them. Chief Justice Roberts stated that the 1977 law does not authorize the President to impose tariffs, restricting his power to bypass Congress on trade policy. 

San Francisco Chronicle +3 

Key Aspects of the Ruling:

Decision: The 6-3 ruling found that Congress, not the executive branch, has the power to impose tariffs, a significant blow to a core, second-term economic agenda.

Impact on Tariffs: The ruling invalidated widespread tariffs, including those on steel, aluminum, and Chinese imports enacted in 2025.

Refunds: The decision puts over $175 billion in collected tariffs at risk, with potential, though complex, refunds for businesses.

Dissent: Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Clarence Thomas dissented, with Kavanaugh noting the potential for a "mess" regarding the refund process.

Scope: While the 2025 "Liberation Day" and reciprocal tariffs are affected, other, more specific trade remedies (like Section 232) were not part of this specific ruling, according to Canadian Trade Minister Dominic LeBlanc. 

Evrim Ağacı +5

This decision is seen as a major check on presidential authority over international commerce. 

Evrim Ağacı

In a landmark 6-3 decision on February 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a significant portion of President Donald Trump's global tariffs, ruling that he exceeded his executive authority. 

Evrim Ağacı +1

Key Details of the Ruling

The Decision: The Court ruled 6-3 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977 does not grant the President the power to unilaterally impose trade tariffs.

Constitutional Basis: Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, emphasized that the Constitution vests the power to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises" exclusively in Congress.

Major Questions Doctrine: The Court applied this doctrine, asserting that for matters of such vast "economic and political significance," a clear and specific delegation of power from Congress is required.

Dissenting Voices: Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented. Justice Kavanaugh argued that tariffs are a traditional tool for regulating importation and that the ruling could cause significant economic disruption. 

Evrim Ağacı +7

Scope and Impact

Affected Tariffs: The ruling specifically targets tariffs enacted under IEEPA, including the "reciprocal" tariffs and levies on steel, aluminum, and various Chinese imports.

Unaffected Tariffs: Tariffs imposed under other legal authorities (such as Section 232 or Section 301) remain in place for now, as they were not the focus of this specific case.

Financial Consequences: Economists estimate that over $175 billion in collected tariff revenue may now be subject to refund, though the Court's opinion did not provide a specific mechanism for how or if these refunds should be processed.

Political Reaction: President Trump reportedly labeled the decision a "disgrace," while business groups and trade organizations hailed it as a victory for market stability.

https://www.google.com/search?q=us+supreme+court+decision+on+tariffs+2-20-26+google+ai

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

Tariff Decision Implications 2-23-26

Key Aspects of the Struck-Down IEEPA Regime (2025-2026): 

Reciprocal Tariffs (10%–25%+): Initially aimed at all countries to offset trade deficits, later adjusted to 15% for various countries including the DRC and Equatorial Guinea.

Canada/Mexico/China Focus: Included 25% tariffs on Canadian/Mexican goods (due to illegal drug influx) and specific, often higher, duties on Chinese goods.

Sector-Specific Increases: Effective Oct 14, 2025, to Jan 1, 2026,, tariffs were set for specific items: Softwood timber/lumber (+10% rising to 30%), upholstered wooden products (+25% rising to 50%), and kitchen cabinets (+25%).

Energy Imports: A 10% tariff was applied to Canadian energy imports, including crude oil, natural gas, and coal.

Legal Status: Following court rulings, importers have been seeking refunds, as the legal basis for these specific IEEPA-based tariffs was deemed invalid. 

As of February 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. Consequently, all tariffs previously enacted under IEEPA authority have been invalidated and terminated. 

Trade Compliance Resource Hub +4

While the IEEPA-specific tariff list is no longer in effect, the administration immediately transitioned to alternative legal authorities. 

Status of Major Tariff Programs (Post-Feb 20, 2026)

Active

Section 122  A 10% dury on most imports took effect 2-24-26 for 150 day period.

Section 232  Tariffs on steel, aluminum and automobiles remain at 25%.

Section 301 Existing tariffs on Chinese goods remain in full effect.

Summary of Terminated IEEPA Tariffs

Before being struck down, the IEEPA regime included the following primary measures that are no longer active: 

Reciprocal Tariffs: A baseline 10% duty applied to most trading partners, with higher rates for specific countries.

Trafficking & Immigration Tariffs: High-rate duties targeting imports from China, Mexico, and Canada intended to address fentanyl and border security.

De Minimis Change: IEEPA was used to suspend duty-free treatment for low-value imports; however, a new February 20, 2026 Executive Order has re-established this suspension under separate authority. 

Trade Compliance Resource Hub +4

New Replacement: Section 122 Surcharge 

Following the court ruling, a 10% surcharge was imposed under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. This applies to most imports starting February 24, 2026, with notable exemptions for: 

USMCA-compliant goods from Canada and Mexico (commercial shipments).

Critical sectors: Pharmaceuticals, certain electronics, energy products, and specific agricultural goods. 

O'Melveny +2

Importer Refunds

The Supreme Court remanded the issue of refunds for the estimated $160 billion in IEEPA duties already collected back to the U.S. Court of International Trade. Importers may be eligible for refunds, though U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) guidance on the process is currently pending. 

https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=3c5cf73ee52ef95e&q=IEEPA

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

Congressional Action on Tariffs 2-23-26

Yes, Congress is expected to heavily weigh in on tariff policy in 2026, driven by a landmark Supreme Court ruling on February 20, 2026, which struck down President Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose broad tariffs. The Court affirmed that the constitutional authority to levy tariffs rests with Congress.  

The Conference Board +3

Here is the outlook for Congressional action on tariffs in 2026:

Reclaiming Authority: The ruling forces Congress back into the "driver's seat" on trade policy. Lawmakers, particularly Republicans in swing districts or from farming states, are now under pressure to vote on whether to support or oppose new, narrower tariffs proposed by the administration.

Legislative Efforts to Counter Tariffs: In response to the ruling, lawmakers have introduced legislation to act. This includes:

The RELIEF Act: Aims to provide automatic tariff refunds.

The Prevent Tariff Abuse Act: Would stop the president from imposing tariffs under the guise of a national emergency without Congressional approval.

The Congressional Trade Authority Act: Requires the president to submit to Congress any proposal to adjust tariffs under Section 232.

Potential for New Legislation: While the administration has signaled it will use alternative statutes (Section 122 and Section 301) to replace the struck-down tariffs, Congress may move to limit these tools.

Divided Views: The issue is a major point of contention within the GOP, with some Republicans celebrating the ruling as a win for constitutional separation of powers, while others face pressure from the administration to support new duties. 

Congressman Greg Stanton (.gov) +4

Contextual Factors for 2026:

Economic Impact: The Supreme Court ruling creates uncertainty regarding whether billions of dollars in tariffs already collected will be refunded.

2026 Midterms: With midterm elections approaching, the economic consequences of tariffs—such as higher prices for consumers—are expected to be a major campaign theme.

Future Legal Battles: Experts suggest the 2026 ruling is not the last time the Supreme Court will be involved, as the administration tests alternative legal avenues for trade restrictions. 

Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget +4

https://www.google.com/search?q=is+congress+planning+to+weigh+in+on+the+tariff+issue+in+2026+google+ai

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

Trump Response 2-23-26

Following a February 2026 Supreme Court ruling limiting his use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), President Trump is implementing a "Plan B" centered on imposing a 10% universal baseline tariff on most imports using Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. This temporary, 150-day measure aims to address balance-of-payments issues, while his administration simultaneously initiates longer-term investigations under Section 301 for unfair trade practices.  

Michael Best & Friedrich LLP +5

Key Components of Trump's "Plan B" (as of Feb 21, 2026):

Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974: This allows the President to impose up to 15% tariffs for 150 days to address "fundamental international payment problems" or major trade deficits.

10% Universal Tariff: An executive order will enforce a 10% duty on most imports, supplementing existing tariffs.

Section 301 Investigations: Long-term, permanent tariffs are expected to be established through new investigations into foreign trade practices, similar to actions taken in his first term.

Expansion of Section 232: The administration plans to broaden the definition of national security to cover more products under existing 232 authorities.

Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930: This rarely-used,, 96-year-old provision is being considered for penalties up to 50% on countries discriminating against U.S. commerce. 

Michael Best & Friedrich LLP +5

These actions are designed to keep significant import taxes in place while navigating the new legal restrictions on IEEPA, say Axios and Investor's Business Daily. 

Following the February 20, 2026, Supreme Court ruling that struck down President Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) for tariffs, the administration immediately transitioned to a "Plan B" centered on alternative legal authorities. 

Eversheds Sutherland +1

Trump's "Plan B" consists of the following key measures:

Global 10% Tariff: Trump signed an executive order late on February 20 to impose an across-the-board 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. This authority allows for tariffs of up to 15% to address balance-of-payment deficits, but is strictly limited to 150 days unless extended by Congress.

New Section 301 Investigations: The administration is launching new investigations under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to address "unfair trade practices". These allow for more permanent duties but require a lengthy procedural process, including public hearings and investigations that typically take 9 months to complete.

Expansion of Section 232 Tariffs: Trump confirmed that sector-specific "national security" tariffs—such as those on steel, aluminum, copper, and semiconductors—remain in full effect. He has indicated he may expand these to cover more products or increase rates.

Potential Use of Section 338: The administration is considering invoking Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (a "Depression-era" law). This would allow for tariffs of up to 50% on countries found to discriminate against U.S. commerce, with no automatic expiration date. 

Investopedia +9

Key Exemptions and Constraints:

Exemptions: The new 10% global tariff reportedly exempts Canadian and Mexican goods that comply with the USMCA, as well as specific items like critical minerals, pharmaceuticals, and certain energy products.

Refund Uncertainty: While the Supreme Court ruling invalidated billions in previously collected IEEPA tariffs, Trump has cast doubt on immediate refunds, suggesting the issue will be litigated for years.

Procedural Hurdles: Unlike the "Plan A" IEEPA tariffs, these alternative "Plan B" authorities are more narrow, often time-limited, and require specific administrative findings or investigations before they can be fully implemented. 

Eversheds Sutherland +5

https://www.google.com/search?q=what+is+trump%27s+plan+b+for+tariffs

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

Self Deportation 2-23-26

Based on Department of Homeland Security (DHS) reports and public statements from early 2026, an estimated 2.2 million undocumented immigrants self-deported from the United States between January 2025 and January 2026. This figure is part of a broader administration initiative to encourage voluntary departures, which now includes a $2,600 "exit bonus" for those who leave voluntarily.  

Homeland Security (.gov) +3

Note: Some research groups, such as the Center for Migration Studies, have disputed these high figures, suggesting the actual number of self-deportations may be closer to 200,000. 

The Center for Migration Studies of New York +1

Self-Deportation Data Overview (As of early 2026)

Total Self-Deported (Jan 2025 – Jan 2026): ~2.2 million.

Voluntary Departure App Use: Tens of thousands of individuals have utilized the CBP Home program.

Total Removals + Self-Deportations: When combining formal deportations (over 675,000) and self-deportations, reports indicate over 3 million unauthorized immigrants left the U.S. in the first year of the new administration. 

Homeland Security (.gov) +3

Key Details and Trends

Financial Incentives: The DHS increased the voluntary departure "exit bonus" from $1,000 to $2,600 to encourage more individuals to leave.

Enforcement Pressure: Many individuals are choosing to depart to avoid arrest, detention, and potential bans on re-entry.

Impact on Demographics: The surge in self-deportations has been described as leading to negative net migration in 2025. 

Brookings +3

Data by State

Specific, definitive, and comprehensive data breaking down the 2.2 million self-deportations by individual state is not currently available in public federal reports, as the "self-deported" designation often relies on tracking those who leave without formal, recorded, or forced removal. 

However, based on pending deportation cases, the highest impacts of increased immigration enforcement are in states with the largest undocumented populations: 

tracreports.org

California

Texas

New York

Florida

New Jersey & Virginia (also report high pending cases) 

The Center for Migration Studies argues that the DHS claims of 2 million self-deportations are "a self-serving fantasy" and that voluntary departures are often confused with, or used to overstate, the number of people leaving the country voluntarily due to policy, as opposed to simply returning home.

According to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), an estimated 2.2 million undocumented immigrants have "self-deported" since January 2025 as of early 2026. However, the government does not typically release a state-by-state breakdown of these figures, as self-deportation is difficult to track precisely; most individuals leave without notifying the government. 

Homeland Security (.gov) +4

Key Statistics and Program Updates

National Totals: DHS reported that by January 20, 2026, nearly 3 million unauthorized immigrants had left the U.S. in total, consisting of roughly 2.2 million self-deportations and over 675,000 formal removals.

Exit Incentives: To encourage departures, the administration increased the "exit bonus" for those using the CBP Home program from $1,000 to $2,600 in January 2026.

Participation: Tens of thousands of individuals have reportedly used the CBP Home app to facilitate their voluntary return. 

EL PAÍS English +5

Data Controversy

The accuracy of the 2.2 million self-deportation figure is heavily disputed by independent researchers: 

Center for Migration Studies (CMS): Estimates the true number of self-deportations at approximately 200,000 for the past year—about one-tenth of the official DHS claim.

Brookings Institution: Stated that the DHS data "should not be considered a serious source" for net migration estimates.

Methodology Concerns: Critics argue the administration’s figures are based on flawed analysis of Census Bureau surveys rather than documented departures. 

The Center for Migration Studies of New York +4

Target Population by State

While state-specific self-deportation data is unavailable, the states with the largest populations of undocumented immigrants as of early 2026 are: 

California: ~1.8 million

Texas: ~1.6 million

Florida: ~1.2 million

New York: ~650,000 

https://www.google.com/search?q=how+many+illegals+in+the+us+have+opted+to+self+deport+by+state+in+2026+google+ai

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

Illegals in Hall County GA 2-22-26

Based on data from the Migration Policy Institute (MPI), there are an estimated 27,000 unauthorized immigrants residing in Hall County, Georgia. 

migrationpolicy.org +1 

Here are the details regarding the immigrant population in Hall County based on available estimates:

Total Unauthorized Population: Approximately 27,000.

Origin: The vast majority, roughly 92% (25,000 people), are from Mexico and Central America, with 16,000 hailing specifically from Mexico.

Demographics: About 57% of this population has lived in the U.S. for 20 or more years, while 13% have been in the country for less than 5 years.

Employment: The unauthorized workforce is heavily concentrated in manufacturing (31%) and construction (26%), with a 72% labor force participation rate.

Impact: Approximately 36% of this population lives with at least one U.S.-citizen child. 

migrationpolicy.org +3

Contextual Data

County Growth: Hall County has seen positive net migration from other countries, with about 1,400 more people arriving from abroad than leaving between 2023 and 2024.

Foreign-Born Percentage: As of 2023, approximately 16.6% of Hall County residents were born outside the United States.

Regional Context: Georgia has become a top destination for unauthorized immigrants, with an estimated 479,000 to 500,000 living in the state as of late 2025. 

Data USA +3

Note: These figures are estimates based on analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data and Department of Homeland Security information, as precise numbers for undocumented populations are difficult to verify. 

Precise numbers for undocumented populations are difficult to track at the county level, but estimates for Hall County, Georgia, and the state have seen significant updates in recent reports. 

Hall County Statistics

Unauthorized Population Estimate: Approximately 27,000 to 31,000 undocumented immigrants reside in Hall County according to data from the Migration Policy Institute (MPI).

Demographic Context: As of 2023, Hall County has a total foreign-born population of roughly 34,600 people, meaning a high percentage of the county's immigrant population is estimated to be unauthorized.

Country of Origin: The vast majority (approximately 59%) of the unauthorized population in Hall County is from Mexico, followed by Central American countries like Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras.

Residency Duration: About 57% of unauthorized residents in Hall County have lived in the U.S. for 20 years or more, indicating a well-established community. 

migrationpolicy.org +4

Georgia State Trends (2025–2026)

Statewide Growth: Georgia's unauthorized immigrant population grew by roughly 45% between 2018 and mid-2023, reaching an estimated 479,000 to 500,000 people.

National Ranking: As of late 2025, Georgia has moved up to become the state with the 6th largest unauthorized immigrant population in the United States.

Total Immigrant Population: There are an estimated 1.38 million total immigrants living in Georgia, making up about 12% of the state's total population. 

https://www.google.com/search?q=how+many+illegals+are+in+hall+county+ga+google+ai

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

Illegals in DeKalb County GA 2-22-26

Precise estimates for the undocumented population in DeKalb County Georgia, for 2026 are not yet available from official government sources like the U.S. Census Bureau, as they typically do not track legal status directly. However, recent 2025-2026 reports provide the following data on the county's immigrant and unauthorized populations: 

County-Level Immigrant Population: Approximately 18% (roughly 137,000–140,000) of DeKalb County's 765,000 residents are foreign-born.

State-Level Estimates: As of late 2025, the total unauthorized population in Georgia is estimated at nearly 500,000, making it the sixth-largest in the nation.

Historical Trends: While specific 2026 figures for DeKalb are pending, historical data from organizations like the Migration Policy Institute have previously estimated the unauthorized population in neighboring large counties (like Cobb) at around 55,000; DeKalb, with its high diversity and foreign-born density, is often cited as a primary hub for these communities in Metro Atlanta.

Recent Enforcement: In May 2025, multi-agency operations in DeKalb County resulted in the detainment of 19 undocumented immigrants during traffic enforcement.

https://www.google.com/search?q=how+many+illegals+are+in+the+dekalb+county+ga+2026+google+ai

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader