Government and Politics Other

U.S. Supreme Court Rules Against Trump Tariffs

Leave a comment

On February 20, 2026, by a vote of 6-3, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the tariffs Donald Trump imposed during his second term as president.

Read the entire ruling here.

Justices John Roberts, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson sided in favor of the ruling. Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito dissented.

Last year, Trump imposed tariffs by way of executive orders, referencing the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) as justification.

The Court did not weigh in on whether or how the federal government should provide refunds to the importers who have paid the tariffs.

In the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote:

Based on two words separated by 16 others in … IEEPA—'regulate' and 'importation'—the President asserts the independent power to impose tariffs on imports from any country, of any product, at any rate, for any amount of time. Those words cannot bear such weight. IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties. Until now no President has read IEEPA to confer such power.

When Congress has delegated its tariff powers it has done so in explicit terms, and subject to strict limits [violating the "major questions" doctrine].

The U.S. Code is replete with statutes granting the Executive the authority to 'regulate' someone or something. Yet the Government cannot identify any statute in which the power to regulate includes the power to tax.

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

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote:

For those who think it important for the Nation to impose more tariffs, I understand that today's decision will be dis-appointing. All I can offer them is that most major decisions affecting the rights and responsibilities of the American people (including the duty to pay taxes and tariffs) are funneled through the legislative process for a reason. Yes, legislating can be hard and take time. And, yes, it can be tempting to bypass Congress when some pressing problem arises. But the deliberative nature of the legislative process was the whole point of its design. Through that process, the Nation can tap the combined wisdom of the people's elected representatives, not just that of one faction or man. There, deliberation tempers impulse, and compromise hammers disagreements into workable solutions. And because laws must earn such broad support to survive the legislative process, they tend to endure, allowing ordinary people to plan their lives in ways they cannot when the rules shift from day to day. In all, the legislative process helps ensure each of us has a stake in the laws that govern us and in the Nation's future. For some today, the weight of those virtues is apparent. For others, it may not seem so obvious. But if history is any guide, the tables will turn and the day will come when those disappointed by today's result will appreciate the legislative process for the bulwark of liberty it is.

In the minority dissent, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote that Trump had the authority under IEEPA to impose tariffs because they "are a traditional and common tool to regulate importation." Kavanaugh also wrote:

I firmly disagree with the Court's holding today, the decision might not substantially constrain a President's ability to order tariffs going forward … because numerous other federal statutes authorize the President to impose tariffs and might justify most (if not all) of the tariffs at issue in this case.

Source:

Howe, Amy. (February 20, 2026). "Supreme Court strikes down tariffs". SCOTUSBlog. Retrieved 2026-02-20.

(February 20, 2026). "LEARNING RESOURCES, INC., ET AL. v. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL". supremecourt.gov. Retrieved 2026-02-24.

(February 20, 2026). "Trump calls Supreme Court 'a disgrace to our nation' after striking down his tariff policy". MS NOW. Retrieved 2026-02-20.

At a White House press briefing Trump responded:

The Supreme Court's ruling on tariffs is deeply disappointing, and I'm ashamed of certain members of the court — absolutely ashamed — for not having the courage to do what's right for our country.

They're [the three conservative justices who ruled against the tariffs] very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution. It's my opinion that the court has been swayed by foreign interests and a political movement that is far smaller than people would ever think. It's a small movement.

I'd like to thank and congratulate Justices Thomas, Alito and [Brett] Kavanaugh for their strength and wisdom and love of our country, which is right now, very proud of those justices.

They're [Thomas and Alito] great justices. That's all I can say. And I hope they be around a long time. I hope they stay healthy. They're great people.

I don't want to say whether I regret nominating them [Gorsuch and Barrett]. I think their decision was terrible. I think it's an embarrassment to their families.

They [Roberts, Gorsuch, and Coney Barrett] are barely invited. Three of them are invited. To be honest, I could care less if they come or not.

In order to protect our country, a president can actually charge more tariffs than I was charging in the past period of a year under the various tariffs authorities.

So we can use other of the statutes, other of the tariff authorities, which have also been confirmed and are fully allowed.

Source:

Manchester, Julia. (February 20, 2026). "Trump calls Supreme Court justices who ruled against tariffs 'disloyal'". The Hill. Retrieved 2026-02-20.

Lee, Ella; Schonfeld, Zach. (February 20, 2026). "5 takeaways as Supreme Court strikes blow to Trump's tariffs". The Hill. Retrieved 2026-02-20.

Read a transcript of Trump's entire press briefing here.

Later in the day, Trump posted the following on Truth Social:

It is my Great Honor to have just signed, from the Oval Office, a Global 10% Tariff on all Countries, which will be effective almost immediately. Thank you for your attention to this matter! PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP

Read Trump's Global 10% Tariff proclamation here.

In the proclamation, Trump invokes Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. That Act allows the president to impose tariffs of up to 15 percent to address a "large and serious balance-of-payments deficit" (according to a White House fact sheet). The imposed tariffs can remain in effect for as long as 150 days, after which Congress would have to pass legislation to keep them in effect.

JD Vance posted the following on X:

Today, the Supreme Court decided that Congress, despite giving the president the ability to "regulate imports", didn't actually mean it. This is lawlessness from the Court, plain and simple. And its only effect will be to make it harder for the president to protect American industries and supply chain resiliency.

President Trump has a wide range of other tariff powers and he will use them to defend American workers and advance this administration's trade priorities.

U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) posted the following on X:

No Supreme Court decision can undo the massive damage that Trump's chaotic tariffs have caused.

The American people paid for these tariffs and the American people should get their money back.

Speaking on MS NOW with host Nicole Wallace, Neil Katyal, former Principal Deputy Solicitor General of the United States, who argued against the tariffs before the U.S. Supreme Court representing a group of more than 50 businesses said:

It's a decision about the presidency and the chief justice writing for six justices used very strong language about the president, to the president saying, you know, the constitution requires you to get this affirmative approval of the Congress. And you can't just do this on your own. In America, the stroke of the president's pen is not enough to impose taxes on the American people and tariffs are nothing else but taxes, the chief justice said.

Yeah, so the dissent written by justice Kavanaugh says that presidents have the flexibility, and if the president is able to, for example, blockade goods, then he should be able to impose taxes on goods. And the fundamental problem with that, as the chief justice said, echoing what I said at the argument, is tariffs are fundamentally different than blockades. Blockades stoop some goods from coming in, but they don't impose taxes on the American people. They don't take money out of your wallet in order for you to get something, so that's very different than a blockade.

That is something so extraordinary about this country, the idea that we have a system that's self-correcting that allows us to say you might be the most powerful man in the world but you still can't break the Constitution. I mean, that to me is what today is about.

More:

On February 21, 2026, Trump posted the following on Truth Social:

Based on a thorough, detailed, and complete review of the ridiculous, poorly written, and extraordinarily anti-American decision on Tariffs issued yesterday, after MANY months of contemplation, by the United States Supreme Court, please let this statement serve to represent that I, as President of the United States of America, will be, effective immediately, raising the 10% Worldwide Tariff on Countries, many of which have been "ripping" the U.S. off for decades, without retribution (until I came along!), to the fully allowed, and legally tested, 15% level. During the next short number of months, the Trump Administration will determine and issue the new and legally permissible Tariffs, which will continue our extraordinarily successful process of Making America Great Again - GREATER THAN EVER BEFORE!!! Thank you for your attention to this matter. President DONALD J. TRUMP

Note that the new tariffs, which go into effect on February 24, exclude a wide range of goods, including agricultural products, pharmaceuticals, electronics and certain vital minerals and metals, and that goods from Canada and Mexico are excluded because of the USMCA agreement signed in 2020.

Mar 5, 2026 Update

24 states sue over Trump's latest tariffs - POLITICO
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/03/05/states-sue-trump-tariffs-00814371

Mar 4, 2026 Update

Judge orders Trump administration to close out goods without charging emergency tariffs 
https://thehill.com/homenews/5767822-federal-trade-court-ruling/

Commentary:

Right on cue, Trump lashes out at the Supreme Court justices who ruled against his tariffs. It's beyond pathetic that a U.S. president would behave this way for the entire world to see, but as we've seen, Trump is now at a point where he doesn't give a damn about what anyone else thinks. Trump doesn't give a damn about anyone else but himself. Everything he says and does is motivated by his gargantuan, ever-present, and ever-growing ego.

Trump's comments on the Supreme Court decision are highly telling about his values. Once again, Trump showed us that he places more value on loyalty than rule of law. And, as we've seen from many of his appointed sycophants, loyalty also comes before qualification and ability to do a job.

Then, less than 24 hours after he said he was imposing 10% global tariffs, he says he's increasing them to 15%. What kind of person does this kind of thing?

It's obvious that after having a little time to "stew" about his Supreme Court defeat, Trump just couldn't help himself (once again) and decided to lash out by upping the ante. What Trump is NOT taking into account, apparently, is that each time he imposes more tariffs he's raising taxes on American importers. This is NOT good policy in an election year, but as I just said, at the end of the day Trump doesn't care about anything other than feeding his massive ego, regardless of the consequences.

It's also worth noting that Trump used the word "retribution" in his February 21 post. This is yet another glaring insight into Trump's persona, where getting even and retribution play huge roles.

Vance's comment on X makes no logical sense. He says that "Congress, despite giving the president the ability to 'regulate imports,' didn't actually mean it."

Huh?

How has Congress given Trump the ability to "regulate imports" and when did Congress grant Trump that ability?

Vance then adds that Congress didn't actually mean it. Mean what, giving the president the ability to "regulate imports?"

If you can't even make a logical, factual, linguistically correct statement, I suggest you just say nothing at all and stop making a complete fool of yourself.

Vance also claims that the Court is "lawless."

The U.S. Supreme Court consists of six conservative justices and three liberal justices. Three of the conservative justices were nominated by Trump and confirmed during his first term as president. Apparently, having a 6-3 conservative advantage isn't quite enough for Vance.

Just because you don't like or agree with a decision doesn't make the body that made that decision lawless. This is just another glaring example of the pure and complete idiocy of JD Vance.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *