Supreme Court strikes down Trump’s one-man tariff war

In anticipation of the high court’s ruling, big-name companies like Costco, Revlon and Bumble Bee Foods filed lawsuits in the U.S. Court of International Trade to secure tariff refunds for billions of dollars.

by Kelsey Reichmann, Court House News, February 20, 2026

WASHINGTON (CN) — Marking a rare rebuke, the Supreme Court on Friday ruled that President Donald Trump does not have emergency powers to issue unilateral international tariffs.

Leading a disjointed majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said the president needed Congress’ approval for such an action.

“The president asserts the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope,” the George W. Bush appointee wrote. “In light of the breadth, history, and constitutional context of that asserted authority, he must identify clear congressional authorization to exercise it.”

Trump used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, also known as IEEPA, to impose new tariffs on almost all U.S. trading partners in April. The Nixon-era law gives the president authority to deal with unusual or extraordinary foreign threats during a national emergency. Presidents have invoked the act dozens of times to impose sanctions, justify export controls or restrict transactions, but never to impose tariffs.

The six-justice majority held that the Constitution gives Congress — not the executive branch — power to implement tariffs. Even if IEEPA gave Trump some tariff authority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Justice Neil Gorsuch, both Trump appointees, joined Roberts in holding that the major questions doctrine prevented Trump from making massive policy decisions unilaterally.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Elena Kagan and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson agreed that IEEPA didn’t give Trump authority to implement his tariffs but refused to apply the major questions doctrine. Sotomayor and Kagan were appointed by Barack Obama; Jackson was appointed by Joe Biden.

Under the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in West Virginia v. EPA  , the executive branch needs clear authorization from Congress for actions with major economic or political impacts. In 2023, the justices used West Virginia  ’s major questions doctrine to strike down then-President Biden’s student debt forgiveness plan.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a Trump appointee, penned a dissent joined by Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito, stating the court’s decision would have substantial economic effects and generate uncertainty with trade agreements.

“The United States may be required to refund billions of dollars to importers who paid the IEEPA tariffs, even though some importers may have already passed on costs to consumers or others,” Kavanaugh wrote. “As was acknowledged at oral argument, the refund process is likely to be a ‘mess.’”

Thomas is a George H.W. Bush appointee and Alito is a George W. Bush appointee.

Trump declared a national emergency over “large and persistent” trade deficits, imposing a global 10% tariff on all imports and subjecting some countries to higher rates. Trump also imposed tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China for supposed connections to illegal drug trafficking.

The act doesn’t include any references to tariffs or duties, but U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer argued the law gives presidents authority to “regulate importation” of foreign goods, including the use of tariffs.

A group of small businesses involved in the case said that by the government’s own estimate, Trump’s tariffs amount to an over $3 trillion tax increase on Americans over the next decade. Business groups like the Chamber of Commerce said the tariffs will hit the poorest Americans hardest and cost over 800,000 jobs. Trump has made matters worse, the group said, by erratically increasing, decreasing, suspending or reimposing tariffs at will.

Lower courts sided with small businesses and states who sued the government, but those rulings have been paused. The justices were largely skeptical of Trump’s arguments when the high court heard oral arguments in November.

Trump claimed that his tariff appeal was the most important Supreme Court case in history. The president issued dire warnings ahead of the Supreme Court’s decision, stating it was “literally life or death for our country.”

Roberts used Trump’s own statements to shore up the invocation of the major questions doctrine, framing his claims as a transformative expansion of the president’s power over tariff policy.

“In the president’s view, whether ‘we are a rich nation’ or a ‘poor’ one hangs in the balance,” Roberts wrote. “These stakes dwarf those of other major questions cases. As in those cases, ‘a reasonable interpreter would [not] expect’ Congress to ‘pawn[]” such a “big-time policy call[]… off to another branch.’”

The ruling resulted in a slew of concurring and dissenting opinions. While Thomas suggested in a dissent Trump had the stronger argument because at the nation’s founding, “the tariff power was considered a ‘prerogative right’ of the British king,” Gorsuch said in a concurrence the founders specifically intended for the president not to be a king.

Gorsuch said the Townshend Acts helped incite the American Revolution and foreign duties on tea led to the Boston Tea Party.

“Are we really to believe that the patriots that night in Boston Harbor considered the whole of the tariff power some kingly prerogative?” he wrote.

Kavanaugh said presidents need broad authority over foreign affairs, putting their actions outside of the major questions doctrine. He claimed the majority’s ruling marked a novel and unprecedented use of the doctrine.

“In the foreign affairs context, including tariffs, the longstanding rule is simple: Interpret the statute as written, not with a thumb on the scale against the president,” Kavanaugh wrote.

After the Supreme Court’s frosty reception, companies like Costco, Revlon and Bumble Bee Foods filed lawsuits in the U.S. Court of International Trade to secure tariff refunds for billions of dollars before any funds are liquidated and sent to the Treasury.

Immediately after the ruling, it was unclear how such refunds would proceed. The ranking member of the House Budget Committee warned that the administration would attempt to implement Trump’s tariff scheme through other means.

“The Supreme Court rejected Trump’s attempt to impose what amounted to a national sales tax on hardworking Americans,” Representative Brendan Boyle said. “Trump’s tariffs weakened our economy, hurt American workers, and made it harder for families to make ends meet. Trump will try to do this again another way because he is intent on continuing his unhinged economic sabotage.”

Kavanaugh offered Trump a path to do just that, stating that Trump could use the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, the Trade Act of 1974 and the Tariff Act of 1930.

“In essence, the court today concludes that the president checked the wrong statutory box by relying on IEEPA rather than another statute to impose these tariffs,” Kavanaugh wrote.

Court watchers praised the ruling as a win for the separation of powers, while economic experts celebrated the decision as a win for free trade. Brent Skorup, a legal fellow at the Cato Institute, said the court chose to enforce meaningful limits on executive authority despite its deference to the president on foreign affairs.

“For too long, Congress has delegated sweeping authority to the executive branch in ways that strain the separation-of-powers principles at the heart of our constitutional system,” Skorup said. “This decision restores an important boundary."

The White House did not respond to a request for comment.