Supreme Court strikes down Trump's sweeping global tariffs

The ruling opens the door to potentially hundreds of billions of dollars in tariff refunds.

Justices Strike Down Trump’s Tariffs

President Trump is the first to invoke the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 to set tariffs on imported goods from more than 100 countries.

By Ann E. Marimow

Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump’s Global Tariffs - The Wall Street Journal

Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump’s Global Tariffs  The Wall Street Journal

US Supreme Court delivers ruling on Trump’s tariffs

Top court has been examining whether US administration exceeded its authority in imposing levies

Live updates: In rare rebuke of Trump, Supreme Court strikes down tariffs

The ruling deals a major blow to his signature economic policy and represents a stinging political setback.

By Washington Post staff

Trump overstepped executive power by imposing tariffs, supreme court rules

Ruling is blow to Trump’s bold assertions of authority and topples key pillar of aggressive economic agenda US politics live – latest updates Donald Trump overstepped his authority by imposing most of his steep tariffs on global imports, the US supreme court ruled on Friday, toppling a key pillar of the president’s aggressive economic agenda. In a 6-3 ruling, the court decided that a 1977 law designed to address national emergencies did not provide the legal justification for most of the Trump administration’s tariffs on the world. Continue reading...

By Callum Jones in New York

7 key things to know about Trump's tariffs after the Supreme Court decision

The Supreme Court ruled Friday that President Trump overstepped his authority in ordering double-digit tariffs on nearly everything the U.S. imports. Here's some of the economic context to understand that decision.

By Scott Horsley

US Supreme Court strikes down Trump’s global tariffs

This is a breaking news story.

Supreme Court rules on Trump tariffs in major test of executive branch powers

The Supreme Court ruled on one of the president's signature economic achievements, which Trump has billed the tariff case as 'life or death' for the US economy.

Trump tariffs: U.S. could owe more than $175 billion in refunds after Supreme Court ruling, estimate says

Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in his dissent, warned that "the refund process" for tariffs "is likely to be a 'mess,' " citing oral arguments

Trump sweeping tariffs struck down: What happens next?

In a much-anticipated decision, the US Supreme Court has ruled that most of the president's tariffs are unconstitutional because of how he implemented them. But the administration has a backup plan.

US Supreme Court rules against Trump’s tariffs

In a consequential decision that most of the world awaited expectantly, with billions of dollars on the line, the US Supreme Court ruled Friday that the president’s tariffs were not legal, paving the way for massive refunds of well over US$100 billion already paid and the likelihood of a tumultuous adjustment. The decision was the most significant setback yet for the administration from a High Court that has broadly accepted Trump’s expansive view of executive power. The momentous decision to go...

By Mark Magnier

US Supreme Court strikes down Trump's sweeping tariffs, upending cornerstone of economic agenda

The US Supreme Court struck down President Donald Trump's far-reaching “reciprocal” global tariffs on Friday, rejecting a cornerstone of his economic agenda. It's the first major piece of Trump's broad agenda to come squarely before the nation's highest court, which he helped shape with the appointments of three conservative jurists in his first term.

By FRANCE 24

Supreme Court rejects Trump’s tariffs. Here’s what the president could try to use instead.

The U.S. Supreme Court said President Trump exceeded his authority in using a 1977 law to justify a large swath of his tariffs, but that does not mean that he’s now unable to slap tariffs on other countries’ products.

By Robert Schroeder

Trump tariffs live updates: Supreme Court strikes down president’s plan in major blow to MAGA agenda

In a 6-3 decision, the justices held that Trump’s tariffs were not permitted under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act

By Brendan Rascius

Supreme Court strikes down swath of Trump's tariffs — but he has other options

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments on November 5 over the legality of President Donald Trump's "liberation day" tariffs. Andrew Harnik/Getty Images; Win McNamee/Getty Images Supreme Court limits Trump's tariff powers under IEEPA emergency law. Court ruling coincides with a decline in US trade deficit due to tariffs. IEEPA tariffs were crucial in Trump's global trade renegotiation strategy. The Supreme court struck down a chunk of President Donald Trump's sweeping tariff policy on Friday, finding a new limit to the expansive presidential powers he has sought. The decision centered on the tariffs Trump justified under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a national security law that allows the president to regulate economic activity during emergencies. Those IEEPA-justified tariffs have been one of Trump's most powerful weapons in his efforts to renegotiate trade agreements around the globe. They include Trump's so-called "Liberation Day" tariffs, announced in April, which are at least 10% on nearly every country in the world. The Supreme Court's decision comes as the United States trade deficit is shrinking, largely due to the Trump administration's tariffs, which are taxes on imported goods. It shrank to $29.4 billion in October, the lowest figure since 2009, according to recently published Commerce Department data. Two groups of businesses filed lawsuits challenging Trump's authority to impose tariffs through IEEPA. The Supreme Court combined their cases and put it on the fast track, holding oral arguments at the beginning of its November term. IEEPA, a Carter-era law, gives presidents the power to "regulate" importation in times of emergency. The Trump administration claimed that it included the ability to impose tariffs — a position no other president has taken. Lawyers representing the businesses argued that Congress has been clear about taxation and tariff powers in other laws, and would have been clear if IEEPA were meant to confer those powers to the president. During oral arguments, most judges expressed skepticism about the Trump administration's arguments. Justice Neil Gorsuch, whom Trump appointed to the bench in his first term, said taxes were "part of the spark of the American Revolution" and should get careful treatment. "The power to reach into the pockets of the American people is just different," Gorsuch said. "And it's been different since the founding." The Supreme Court's ruling does not affect the tariffs that Trump has imposed using other laws, and Trump still has the power to issue additional tariffs using those laws. But his administration has favored IEEPA because of its perceived flexibility. The other laws that allow presidents to impose tariffs without explicit Congressional approval have limits — including built-in expiration dates and caps on the amount taxed. They also make it more difficult to target particular countries, rather than certain industries. This is a breaking story. Please check back for updates. Read the original article on Business Insider

Supreme Court Slaps Down Trump And His Tariffs In Historic Ruling

Why were Trump tariffs ruled illegal by SC? Top points from shock ruling

​​The case marked the first significant element of Trump’s wide-ranging policy agenda to be directly reviewed by America’s highest court — an institution he influenced during his first term by appointing three conservative justices.

By TOI BUSINESS DESK

Supreme Court Blocks Tariffs Hours After Trump Bragged They Wouldn’t

The conservative-dominated court ruled 6-3 against the cornerstone of the president's economic agenda

By Ryan Bort

US Supreme Court rules against Trump's reciprocal tariffs

The US Supreme Court ruled Friday against President Donald Trump's sweeping emergency tariffs, dealing a major setback to his trade policy and raising questions over trade deals with South Korea and other partners that he has secured with the duties as a key negotiating tool. The high court handed down the ruling on the legality of Trump's use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act to levy "reciprocal" tariffs on South Korea and other countries, amid expectations that Washington

By The Korea Herald

US Supreme Court rejects Trump’s global tariffs

The US Supreme Court struck down on Friday President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs that he pursued under a law meant for use in national emergencies, rejecting one of his most contentious assertions of his authority in a ruling with major implications for the global economy. The justices, in a 6-3 ruling, upheld a lower court’s decision that the Republican president’s use of this 1977 law exceeded his authority. The Supreme Court reached its conclusion in a legal challenge by businesses affected by the tariffs and 12 US states, most of them Democratic-governed, against Trump’s unprecedented use of this law to unilaterally impose the import taxes. Trump has leveraged tariffs — taxes on imported goods — as a key economic and foreign policy tool. They have been central to a global trade war that Trump initiated after he began his second term as president, one that has alienated trading partners, affected financial markets and caused global economic uncertainty. Trump’s tariffs were forecast to generate over the next decade trillions of dollars in revenue for the United States, which possesses the world’s largest economy. Trump’s administration has not provided tariffs collection data since December 14. But Penn-Wharton Budget Model economists estimated on Friday that the amount collected in Trump’s tariffs based on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act stood at more than $175 billion. And that amount likely would need to be refunded with a Supreme Court ruling against the IEEPA-based tariffs. The US Constitution grants Congress, not the president, the authority to issue taxes and tariffs. But Trump instead turned to a statutory authority by invoking IEEPA to impose the tariffs on nearly every US trading partner without the approval of Congress. Trump has imposed some additional tariffs under other laws that are not at issue in this case. Based on government data from October to mid-December, those represent about a third of the revenue from Trump-imposed tariffs. IEEPA lets a president regulate commerce in a national emergency. Trump became the first president to use IEEPA to impose tariffs, one of the many ways he has aggressively pushed the boundaries of executive authority since he returned to office in areas as varied as his crackdown on immigration, the firing of federal agency officials, domestic military deployments and military operations overseas. Trump described the tariffs as vital for US economic security, predicting that the country would be defenseless and ruined without them. Trump, in November, told reporters that without his tariffs “the rest of the world would laugh at us because they’ve used tariffs against us for years and took advantage of us”. Trump said the United States was abused by other countries, including China, the second-largest economy. After the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case in November, Trump said he would consider alternatives if it ruled against him on tariffs, telling reporters that “we’ll have to develop a ‘game two’ plan”. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and other administration officials said the United States would invoke other legal justifications to retain as many of Trump’s tariffs as possible. Among others, these include a statutory provision that permits tariffs on imported goods that threaten US national security and another that allows retaliatory actions, including tariffs against trading partners that the Office of the US Trade Representative determines have used unfair trade practices against American exporters. None of these alternatives offered the flexibility and blunt-force dynamics that IEEPA provided Trump, and may not be able to replicate the full scope of his tariffs in a timely fashion. Trump’s ability to impose tariffs instantaneously on any trading partner’s goods under the aegis of some form of declared national emergency raised his leverage over other countries. It brought world leaders scrambling to Washington to secure trade deals that often included pledges of billions of dollars in investments or other offers of enhanced market access for US companies. But Trump’s use of tariffs as a cudgel in US foreign policy has succeeded in antagonizing numerous countries, including those long considered among the closest US allies. IEEPA historically had been used for imposing sanctions on enemies or freezing their assets, not to impose tariffs. The law does not specifically mention the word tariffs. Trump’s Justice Department had argued that IEEPA allows tariffs by authorising the president to “regulate” imports to address emergencies. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that if all current tariffs stay in place, including the IEEPA-based duties, they would generate about $300 billion annually over the next decade. Total U.S. net customs duty receipts reached a record $195 billion in fiscal 2025, which ended on September 30, according to US Treasury Department data. On April 2, on a date Trump labeled “Liberation Day”, the president announced what he called “reciprocal” tariffs on goods imported from most US trading partners, invoking IEEPA to address what he called a national emergency related to US trade deficits, though the United States already had run trade deficits for decades. In February and March of 2025, Trump invoked IEEPA to impose tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico, citing the trafficking of the often-abused painkiller fentanyl and illicit drugs into the United States as a national emergency. Trump has wielded his tariffs to extract concessions and renegotiate trade deals, and as a weapon to punish countries that draw his ire on non-trade political matters. These have ranged from Brazil’s prosecution of former president Jair Bolsonaro, India’s purchases of Russian oil that help fund Russia’s war in Ukraine, and an anti-tariffs ad by Canada’s Ontario province. IEEPA was passed by Congress and signed by Democratic President Jimmy Carter. In passing the measure, Congress placed additional limits on the president’s authority compared to a predecessor law. The cases on tariffs before the justices involved three lawsuits. The Washington-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sided with five small businesses that import goods in one challenge, and the states of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon and Vermont in another. Separately, a Washington-based federal judge sided with a family-owned toy company called Learning Resources.

By none@none.com (Reuters)

Supreme Court Strikes Down Donald Trump’s Tariffs, Saying He Lacked Authority To Do So

The Supreme Court ruled on Friday that Donald Trump did not have the authority to unilaterally impose tariffs, a rebuff of the president’s central economic policy. The court ruled that the president lacked the justification to impose the tariffs during peacetime. More to come.

By Ted Johnson

Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump Tariffs - But He Has 'Backup Plan'

Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump Tariffs - But He Has 'Backup Plan' The Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down Trump's tariffs. In a 6-3 decision (170-pages), the court ruled that Trump's use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) - which constitute about half of the tariffs we've seen under Trump - was not lawful. Kavanaugh, Thomas and Alito dissented.  "IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs," wrote the court.  The ruling stems from a consolidated challenge brought by small businesses and multiple states, including Costco, who argued that the statute - originally intended to authorize sanctions and asset freezes during national emergencies - does not grant the executive branch the power to levy taxes on imports. The Court reasoned that the Constitution vests the authority to impose duties and tariffs with Congress alone, and found that IEEPA’s authorization to “regulate … importation” cannot be interpreted to include the distinct taxing power required to enact broad-based tariffs. The ruling affirms lower-court decisions blocking the challenged measures, concluding that the administration’s emergency-based tariff framework exceeded the limits of the statute. Trump invoked IEEPA to impose his 'reciprocal' tariffs on nearly every foreign trade partner to address what he called a national emergency over US trade deficits. He invoked it again to impose tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico over fentanyl trafficking into the United States.  Friday's decision rests on the notion that tariffs are not merely a tool for regulating trade, but also a a form of taxation that the Constitution reserves to Congress. Citing Article I, Section 8, the majority stressed that the power to impose tariffs is “very clear[ly] … a branch of the taxing power,” and that the Framers gave Congress “alone … access to the pockets of the people.” The administration had argued that IEEPA’s grant of authority to “regulate … importation” permitted the President to impose tariffs in response to declared national emergencies. The Court rejected that interpretation, noting that while “taxes may accomplish regulatory ends, it does not follow that the power to regulate includes the power to tax as a means of regulation.” The majority also pointed to the statute’s text, emphasizing that IEEPA authorizes the President to “investigate, block … regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit” certain transactions - yet makes no mention of tariffs or duties. “Had Congress intended to convey the distinct and extraordinary power to impose tariffs,” the opinion states, “it would have done so expressly, as it consistently has in other tariff statutes.” The Court further highlighted a lack of historical precedent  - noting that that in the nearly 50 years since IEEPA’s enactment, “no President has invoked the statute to impose any tariffs,” and that combined with the sweeping economic impact of the measures at issue - it was a “telling indication” that the asserted authority falls outside the President’s legitimate reach. Trump appointees Gorsuch and Barrett went against the president. He will not be happy https://t.co/o3z6v04x12 February 20, 2026 Applying what it characterized as the “major questions” framework, the Court reasoned that Congress would not delegate such sweeping control over trade policy through vague language. The President’s claim that two words - “regulate” and “importation” - authorize tariffs “of unlimited amount and duration, on any product from any country,” the majority wrote, would represent a “transformative expansion” of executive authority over tariff policy and the broader economy. Tariff Refunds? Notably, the Court’s ruling does not address what happens to the billions of dollars in tariff revenue already collected under the now-invalidated IEEPA framework, leaving open the possibility of a wave of refund litigation in the months ahead. There are currently hundreds of tariff refund lawsuits pending in US trade court. While the majority opinion strikes down Trump's use of IEEPA, it offers no guidance on restitution, repayment, or whether importers may be entitled to recover duties paid pursuant to tariffs the Court has now deemed unlawful. That omission is likely to shift the next phase of the dispute into the U.S. Court of International Trade, where importers may seek retroactive relief through administrative protests or refund actions. Justice Kavanaugh’s dissent notes that the process is likely to be a "mess," warning that “the Court’s decision is likely to generate other serious practical consequences in the near term,” adding “One issue will be refunds.”  Trump's administration has not provided tariffs collection data since December 14. But Penn-Wharton Budget Model economists estimated on Friday that the amount collected in Trump's tariffs based on IEEPA stood at more than $175 billion. And that amount likely would need to be refunded with a Supreme Court ruling against the IEEPA-based tariffs. -Reuters Any such claims could involve complex questions of sovereign immunity, administrative exhaustion, and the availability of equitable relief - particularly where duties were paid without timely protest. Whether courts ultimately require repayment of unlawfully imposed tariffs may depend not just on the validity of the underlying statute, but on the procedural posture of individual importers and the statutory refund mechanisms available under U.S. customs law. During arguments on Nov. 5, the court seemed skeptical over Trump's authority to use IEEPA, leading most observers observers, including betting markets, to conclude a high probability they're struck down at least in part. The Trump administration is appealing lower court rulings that he overstepped his authority, while Trump himself said a Supreme Court ruling against the tariffs would be a "terrible blow" to the United States. Other Options That said, even if that happens, the Trump administration has several other legal avenues they can pursue. As Deutsche Bank noted last month;  For instance, the sectoral tariffs (e.g. on steel and aluminum) aren’t covered by the court ruling, whilst another option would be to use Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act, which permits temporary 15% tariffs for 150 days.   And Goldman: This won’t be the end of tariffs… the administration will almost certainly roll out alternative legal frameworks. Net result is probably slightly fewer tariffs, materially more trade uncertainty, and some incremental deficit concerns. Net-net, that’s mildly supportive for equities and mildly negative for bonds… but largely priced for both. ZH Premium Members - stay tuned for an in-depth look at these options... Meanwhile, Trump called the ruling a 'disgrace,' and told governors at a White House breakfast that he has a 'backup plan' in mind, though no details on that.  Meanwhile, prediction markets got this one right.  Tyler Durden Fri, 02/20/2026 - 10:02

By Tyler Durden