1 week ago
21
The Supreme Court just told the president he can’t tax imports by executive fiat. Donald Trump is not taking it well.
In a 6-3 ruling handed down on February 20, 2026, the Court determined that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not grant the president authority to impose tariffs, classifying such levies as a form of taxation that belongs squarely in Congress’s domain. Trump responded by warning the decision would cost the United States trillions of dollars, a figure rooted in administration projections that the tariffs would have generated between $1.4 trillion and $1.5 trillion over the next decade.
What the Court actually said
Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion, joined by an unusual coalition: Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Barrett, and Jackson. Roberts wrote that IEEPA, a 1977 law designed to let the president freeze assets and block transactions during national emergencies, was never intended as a backdoor to trade policy.
Trump’s tariffs, rolled out in 2025, were framed as responses to a collection of national security threats, from the trade deficit to fentanyl trafficking across borders. The administration argued that IEEPA’s broad language gave the president flexibility to use economic tools, tariffs included, to address those emergencies. Six justices disagreed.
The money already spent
This isn’t a hypothetical policy debate. Real money changed hands. By December 2025, the tariffs had generated over $133 billion in revenue, collected from importers who, in most cases, passed those costs along to American businesses and consumers.
Now that the legal basis for those tariffs has been invalidated, the refund process is already underway. By late June 2026, roughly $104 billion had been returned to importers.
Trump’s warning about trillions in losses points to those forward-looking estimates. The administration had baked $1.4 trillion to $1.5 trillion in tariff revenue into its ten-year fiscal outlook.
The next legal gambit
Trump didn’t simply accept the ruling and move on. The administration announced new tariff measures under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, a statute that allows the president to impose temporary duties of up to 15% for 150 days to address large and serious balance-of-payments deficits.
Section 122 was designed for short-term economic stabilization, not as a replacement framework for the broad, indefinite tariffs that IEEPA had been used to justify.
What this means for markets and policy
The ruling redraws the map of executive trade authority in the United States. For decades, presidents have accumulated trade tools through various statutes, Section 232 for national security, Section 301 for unfair trade practices, and now, briefly, IEEPA for emergencies. The Court has firmly closed one of those doors.
The fiscal implications are equally significant. Losing a projected $1.4 trillion to $1.5 trillion revenue stream forces hard choices. Congress could legislate new tariffs directly, which would be constitutionally sound but politically complex.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
English (US) ·