Outside the Beltway

Breaking: Trump Loses SCOTUS Tariff Case

A 6-3 ruling takes away one of Trump's favorite toys.

Steven L. Taylor · Friday, February 20, 2026 · 9 comments

The NYT reports: Live Updates: Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump’s Sweeping Tariffs.

The Supreme Court ruled Friday that President Trump exceeded his authority when he imposed sweeping tariffs on imports from nearly every U.S. trading partner, a major setback for his administration’s second-term agenda.

The court’s 6-3 decision has significant implications for the U.S. economy, consumers and the president’s trade policy. The Trump administration had said that a loss at the Supreme Court could force the government to unwind trade deals with other countries and potentially pay hefty refunds to importers.

Mr. Trump is the first president to claim that a 1970s emergency statute, which does not mention the word “tariffs,” allowed him to unilaterally impose the duties without congressional approval.

[…]

Early last year, he invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 to set tariffs on imported goods from more than 100 countries. He said his goal was to reduce the trade deficit and spur more manufacturing in the United States. Since then, he has used the tariffs to raise revenue and to pressure other countries in trade negotiations.

The dissenters were Alito, Thomas, and Kavanaugh, should we ever need further evidence of which Justices are pro-dictatorial rule. That may sound harsh, but I don’t know any other way to put it. I will reserve the right to revise my view once I have had the chance to review the opinion and the dissents, but given the statutory and constitutional language on this topic, I don’t think I am being hyperbolic.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said the statute does not authorize the president to impose tariffs.

“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,” the chief justice wrote.

I am not a lawyer, but all of this has seemed pretty evident to me from the get-go.

Under the 1970s-era law, the president has the authority to take certain steps in response to a national emergency to “deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat” to “the national security, foreign policy or economy of the United States.” That includes the power to “regulate” the “importation” of foreign property. Past presidents have relied on that language to place sanctions or embargoes on other countries, but not to impose taxes. But the administration has argued that phrase also gives Mr. Trump the power to levy tariffs.

This case was on my personal mental list of red lines that, once crossed, would have taken us deeper into authoritarian rule. I am relieved that the obviously constitutionally correct interpretation was upheld, but I remain concerned that a third of SCOTUS was willing to grant the president these powers.

The ruling can be found here.

Some highlights (emphases mine). These are from the syllabus section that summarizes the ruling.

Held: IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. The
judgment in No. 24–1287 is vacated, and the case is remanded with
instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; the judgment in No. 25–
250 is affirmed.

[…]

Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution specifies that “The Congress
shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.” The Framers recognized the unique importance of this taxing
power—a power which “very clear[ly]” includes the power to impose
tariffs. Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 201. And they gave Congress
“alone . . . access to the pockets of the people.” The Federalist No. 48,
p. 310 (J. Madison). The Framers did not vest any part of the taxing
power in the Executive Branch.

[…]

the argument that “regulate” naturally includes tariffs because the term lies between two poles in IEEPA—“compel” on the affirmative end and “prohibit” on the negative end—is unavailing.

From the full opinion.

[In regard to war time emergency powers:] The United States, after all, is not at war with every nation in the world.

[…]

the President must “point to clear congressional authorization” to justify his extraordinary assertion of the power to impose tariffs. Nebraska, 600 U. S., at 506
(internal quotation marks omitted). He cannot.

[…]

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.

Form Gorsuch’s concurrence:

The President claims that Congress delegated to him an extraordinary power in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)—the power to impose tariffs on practically any products he wants, from any countries he chooses, in any amounts he selects. Applying the major questions doctrine, the principal opinion rejects that argument. I join in full. The Constitution lodges the Nation’s lawmaking powers in Congress alone, and the major questions doctrine safeguards that assignment against executive encroachment. Under the doctrine’s terms, the President must identify clear statutory authority for the extraordinary delegated power he claims. And, as the principal opinion explains, that is a standard he cannot meet.

Whatever else might be said about Congress’s work inIEEPA, it did not clearly surrender to the President the sweeping tariff power he seeks to wield.