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