Supreme Court Rules on President Trump Tariffs

 The Supreme Court did not "destroy" all of President Trump's tariffs, but on February 20, 2026, it issued a significant 6-3 ruling striking down a large portion of them—specifically, the sweeping global tariffs imposed in 2025 using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977.

Background on the Tariffs in QuestionIn his second term, Trump pursued an aggressive trade agenda, including what were called "reciprocal" or broad-based tariffs on imports from nearly every major trading partner (including Canada, Mexico, China, the EU, Japan, South Korea, and others). These included a baseline 10% tariff on most imports, plus higher rates on specific countries or goods.He justified and imposed many of these under IEEPA, a 1977 law originally designed to give the president powers to deal with unusual and extraordinary threats to national security, foreign policy, or the economy during declared national emergencies (e.g., sanctions, asset freezes). Trump declared trade deficits, unfair trade practices, fentanyl flows, and related issues as constituting national emergencies to invoke this authority for tariffs.This was a novel and expansive use of IEEPA—the law had never before been interpreted to allow the president to impose broad import duties (taxes on imports), which the Constitution assigns to Congress under Article I (the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, and to regulate commerce with foreign nations).The Legal Challenge and Path to SCOTUS

• Importers, businesses, and trade groups challenged the tariffs in lower courts, arguing that IEEPA does not authorize tariffs at all and that using it this way violated separation of powers.
• Lower courts (including the Court of International Trade and appeals) largely sided against the administration, finding the use of IEEPA exceeded presidential authority.
• The Supreme Court took the case (consolidated as cases like Trump v. V.O.S. Selections and related challenges) and heard arguments in late 2025.
• On February 20, 2026, the Court ruled 6-3 that Trump exceeded his authority: IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion (joined by the three liberal justices—Kagan, Sotomayor, Jackson—and conservatives Barrett and Gorsuch). The core reasoning:

• The statute's text and history focus on blocking transactions, regulating property, and sanctions—not on imposing revenue-raising duties/tariffs.
• Allowing such broad use would let the president usurp Congress's constitutional power over taxation and trade.
• This was seen as a "major questions" case: for actions of vast economic significance, Congress must speak clearly (and it didn't here).

The three dissenters (likely Alito, Thomas, and another conservative) were more deferential to executive emergency powers.What Was NOT AffectedThe ruling invalidated the IEEPA-based tariffs (the bulk of the sweeping global ones, reportedly ~75% of the new duties imposed in 2025), but left intact others imposed under different laws, such as:

• Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (national security tariffs, e.g., on steel, aluminum, autos).
• Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (unfair trade practices, especially vs. China).

The administration has indicated it may try to reimpose or replace them using those alternative authorities.Broader ContextThis was a notable check on executive power from a conservative-leaning Court, even though it often defers to presidents on national security/foreign affairs. It reinforces that tariffs are fundamentally a congressional prerogative, not an unlimited presidential tool via emergency statutes.The decision could lead to refunds for importers (potentially billions), market adjustments, and shifts in trade negotiations. Trump and allies have called it a setback but vowed workarounds.If you're looking for the full opinion text or specific impacts on certain industries, let me know!