Supreme Court strikes down Trump tariffs, rebuking president's signature economic policy
Source: CNBC
Published Fri, Feb 20 2026 10:03 AM EST Updated 12 Min Ago
The Supreme Court on Friday struck down a huge chunk of President Donald Trumps far-reaching tariff agenda, in a major rebuke of the presidents key economic policy. The law that undergirds those import duties does not authorize the President to impose tariffs, the majority ruled six to three in a decision Trump had been awaiting.
The ruling is a massive loss for Trump, who has made tariffs and his asserted power to impose them on any country at any time, without congressional input a central feature of his administrations economic and foreign policies. Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the opinion of the court. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh dissented. The ruling was silent on whether tariffs that have been paid under the higher rates will need to be refunded.
Since retaking the White House, Trump has rapidly reshaped Americas longstanding trade relationships by imposing a staggering array of import duties that have touched nearly every country on earth. Many of those tariffs were invoked using a novel reading of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA. They include Trumps near-global reciprocal tariffs, and separate duties related to the alleged trafficking of deadly drugs into the U.S.
IEEPA does not explicitly mention tariffs, and the court ruling Friday said it the law does not grant the president authority to impose tariffs. Instead, it allows the president to regulate
importation of foreign property transactions after declaring a national emergency in order to deal with certain unusual and extraordinary threats. The Trump administration has argued that language empowers the president to impose tariffs on foreign goods.
Read more: https://www.cnbc.com/2026/02/20/supreme-court-trump-tariffs-ruling.html
Link to RULING (PDF) - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1287_4gcj.pdf
Someone in the chat at SCOTUSBlog indicated -
Article updated.
Previous articles/headline -
Published Fri, Feb 20 2026 10:03 AM EST Updated 12 Min Ago
The Supreme Court on Friday struck down a huge chunk of President Donald Trump's far-reaching tariff agenda. The law that undergirds those import duties "does not authorize the President to impose tariffs," the majority ruled six to three. Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the opinion of the court. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.
Since retaking the White House, Trump has rapidly reshaped America's longstanding trade relationships by imposing a staggering array of import duties that have touched nearly every country on earth. Many of those tariffs were invoked using a novel reading of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA. They include Trump's near-global "reciprocal" tariffs, and separate duties related to the alleged trafficking of deadly drugs into the U.S.
IEEPA does not explicitly mention tariffs. Instead, it allows the president to "regulate ... importation" of foreign property transactions after declaring a national emergency in order to deal with certain "unusual and extraordinary" threats. The Trump administration has argued that that language empowers the president to impose tariffs on foreign goods.
Critics charged that the law does not permit the president to unilaterally impose levies of any size on any country at any time. A federal trade court and a federal appeals court both found Trump's IEEPA tariffs illegal before the Supreme Court took up the case. The majority of U.S. tariff revenue generated last year came from the IEEPA duties.
The Supreme Court on Friday struck down a huge chunk of President Donald Trump's far-reaching tariff agenda.
The law that undergirds those import duties "does not authorize the President to impose tariffs," the majority ruled.
This is breaking news. Please check back for updates.
Original article -
This is breaking news. Please check back for updates.
mdbl
(8,391 posts)I doubt it.
BumRushDaShow
(167,772 posts)But have no idea what he is referring to.
Tariffs are Peter Navarro's baby.
Fiendish Thingy
(22,609 posts)I dont think this ruling affects that alternate law- the administration has already said publicly it is their plan B.
The alternate law has a cap of 10-15% on the tariffs that can be imposed, however.
BumRushDaShow
(167,772 posts)I haven't had chance to go through the 170 page ruling, but I think Kavanaugh supposedly summarized alternatives/caveats in his dissent.
Joinfortmill
(20,669 posts)NJCher
(42,865 posts)Why do we have to keep reading the same post over and over again?
It is important for the record.
oasis
(53,478 posts)attached to Trumps ass.
mdbl
(8,391 posts)oasis
(53,478 posts)cstanleytech
(28,342 posts)oasis
(53,478 posts)Aristus
(71,937 posts)Once theyre bought, they stay bought.
louis-t
(24,587 posts)DUCK!!!!!!!
Prairie Gates
(7,641 posts)Shermann
(9,027 posts)wnylib
(25,403 posts)Ketchup bottles in flight.
Baitball Blogger
(51,985 posts)on the reins when they feel like it. Like when it's obvious that a president who thinks he has immunity can destroy this country in one term.
Prairie Gates
(7,641 posts)Kavanaugh in theory should have been 100% on the majority side of this thing based solely on consistent ideological orientation. It's bonkers that he can ignore the fundamental principles of his own belief system just to side with Trump. Truly a piece of shit.
Who paid off those loans for the sex offender?
hatrack
(64,594 posts)Strange how that worked out . . .
VGNonly
(8,447 posts)AZ8theist
(7,187 posts)Other than enriching himself.
KS Toronado
(23,505 posts)Looks like he's going off the deep end.
YodaMom2
(171 posts)which side his toast is buttered on. No matter how many crazy-ass unConstitutional opinions he joins, he will never pay off his debt. Like the mob.
not fooled
(6,631 posts)to commiserate with and ask for advice.
Aviation Pro
(15,389 posts)lostincalifornia
(5,171 posts)separation of powers or the constitution, unless it protects their own stupid asses.
The nazi in the WH will use an alternative way.
That being said, WTF was Congress doing when they didn't even try to push back when the jackass in the white house tried to take that power away from Congress.
Ray Bruns
(6,161 posts)WTF was Congress doing when they didn't even try to push back when the jackass in the white house tried to take that power away from Congress.
Cheezoholic
(3,609 posts)BigmanPigman
(54,885 posts)Aviation Pro
(15,389 posts)That would work for me.
wnylib
(25,403 posts)just by the way they live their lives.
Others make the world a better place just by leaving it.
oasis
(53,478 posts)WestMichRad
(3,108 posts)Ray Bruns
(6,161 posts)The usual fascists.
GiqueCee
(3,721 posts)... and enrages me that those three dissenters dare to call themselves loyal to the Constitution and the nation. They're lower than snake shit in a tire track.
WestMichRad
(3,108 posts)In the voice of Nelson.
Joinfortmill
(20,669 posts)samsingh
(18,360 posts)oasis
(53,478 posts)LetMyPeopleVote
(177,555 posts)The justices expressed skepticism in November that the administration could impose sweeping tariffs under a federal law granting emergency powers.
Supreme Court rules Trump doesnât have the tariff authority he claimed
— Anti-Trumpism (@forabettertomorrow.bsky.social) 2026-02-20T15:17:44.990Z
www.ms.now/deadline-whi...
https://www.ms.now/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/supreme-court-tariffs-trump-ruling
The ruling addressed a key Donald Trump policy as the high court considers the scope of presidential power across several cases this term. The courts Republican-appointed majority has broadly empowered the Republican president but has occasionally checked him.
The justices agreed in September to consider the tariff issue on an expedited basis, granting review in two separate cases, both of which the administration lost in the lower courts. One of them came through a specialized trade and appeals court, and the other came through a general federal court in Washington.
When the high court heard oral arguments in November, the justices sounded skeptical of the administrations position that Trump was authorized to impose the sweeping tariffs under a federal law called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).......
In the case called Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, the Federal Circuit ruled that Trump overstepped his authority in attempting to rely on IEEPA. The statute neither mentions tariffs (or any of its synonyms) nor has procedural safeguards that contain clear limits on the Presidents power to impose tariffs, the circuit court wrote in a divided ruling that split the court 7-4, though not strictly along the party lines of the presidents who appointed the judges.
In the other case, Learning Resources v. Trump, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras, an Obama appointee, wrote that if Congress had intended to delegate to the President the power of taxing ordinary commerce from any country at any rate for virtually any reason, it would have had to say so. He wrote that no other president has ever purported to impose tariffs under IEEPA.
I listened to the oral arguments and did not think that this would be that close of a decision but this is a very divided opinion which is why it took so long to come down.
Link to tweet

mahina
(20,569 posts)riversedge
(80,212 posts)SCOTUS Wire
@scotus_wire
·
43m
🚨 In a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court STRIKES DOWN President Trump's tariffs, holding that the President CANNOT use the IEEPA and Congress alone has the taxing power.
Roberts delivered the opinion/judgment of the Court. Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh dissent.
Link to tweet
?s=20
Xipe Totec
(44,521 posts)wiggs
(8,736 posts)disagreed with. Or because of hte 'drugs' when drugs were clearly not the real issue.
TSFs disorders, lack of discipline, incompetence, narcissism, and gut instincts doomed his illegal use of tariffs
I'm thinking of the tariff trump imposed against Brazil, (additional 40%) because a court had the audacity to sentence their former leader to 27 years in prison for committing the same crime trump committed.
It is insane to allow the leader of a democracy to have that kind of arbitrary power.
bucolic_frolic
(54,646 posts)Sounded to me like non-official duties were verboten.
FakeNoose
(41,002 posts)But ... good on you SCOTUS!
Edit to ADD:
When do I get my REFUND for the artificially high prices I've paid for these stupid f**king tariffs in the last year?
Prices need to come down immediately because tariffs are deleted. Chump owes me a lot of money!
moonshinegnomie
(3,952 posts)I know that wont happen but I can wish
sop
(18,097 posts)'Lutnick Family Angling To Make Astronomical Sums Off Court Nixing Tariffs'
(TPM) "This is not new. But I at least hadnt heard any of these dots connected. I wasnt even aware of the dots. A friend mentioned to me over the weekend that hed heard about Wall Streeters buying up the rights to tariff refunds from big corporate importers. So the idea is that a Wall Street firm goes to an importer and says, youve now paid $10 million in tariffs. Ill pay you $2 million right now for the right to collect the refund if courts ever end up deciding the tariffs were illegal. My friend had also heard that one of the most aggressive buyers was Cantor Fitzgerald, the firm until recently headed by Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and now run by Lutnicks sons. Twenty-something Brandon Lutnick, pictured above on the left in a 2016 photo, is the current chairman of Cantor Fitzgerald. (He must be hella talented!)"
"Damn, I thought: Thats a hot story, crooked as the day is long. But Im not sure how I or we would track it down without better finance world sources. Still, it was worth some quick googling. It turns out this is happening and Cantors role has already been reported. Wired and others reported this more than a month ago."
"In mid-July, according to Wired, Cantor was buying up the rights to your potential tariff refund at between 20 and 30 cents per dollar. Needless to say, I bet that price has gone up a lot since last Fridays federal appellate court upheld the lower court ruling that almost all of Trumps tariffs are illegal. So in paper terms Cantor has probably already made a ton of money on this."
"Now, before going any further I want to make clear that in itself this transaction is fairly unremarkable. A huge amount of modern finance is about making bets on uncertain outcomes, bets which can be structured in various ways. It might be commodities futures. In this case, its the right to collect a refund that may never happen. The sale of debt a ubiquitous feature of modern finance is similar. Purchasing debt, whether its a government bond or your home mortgage, is fundamentally a bet on the likelihood of repayment. I dont want to belabor the point, only to make clear that the transaction in concept is neither outlandish or suspect, at least no more than any other part of modern finance."
"All that said, its hard to imagine anything more emblematic of the Trump Era than what is for all intents and purposes still the Commerce Secretarys company (yes, yes, arms length hand off to his twenty-something sons) making bets on something Lutnick himself has significant influence over. Indeed, far more important than whatever influence Lutnick has over tariff policy is that significant visibility he has into the bets probable outcome."
More at link:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/lutnick-family-angling-to-make-astronomical-sums-off-court-nixing-tariffs
.......
I'm betting Trump will somehow also cash in...
Bluetus
(2,563 posts)This looks like the beginning of the lame duck period or Trump. It is clear the Supreme Court is looking to put daylight between themselves and Trump and to fend off efforts to make major reforms to the Supreme Court.
cstanleytech
(28,342 posts)Unless of course they didn't raise prices to keep or improve their profits while the tariffs were active.
Linda ladeewolf
(1,130 posts)barbtries
(31,254 posts)hmm.
this is good news; i'll take it. i guess now we may find out whether krasnov will ignore the SC the way the rest of the government ignores the Courts, the Constitution, the law....
AverageOldGuy
(3,624 posts).. . . they prefer a king.
hay rick
(9,507 posts)The exception does not prove the rule. Both the membership of the Court and multiple recent precedents need to be bulldozed. We can't afford to go back to "the way things were"...we will just end up in the same spot or worse. The enemies of democracy are seeking to change the meaning of several parts of the constitution and change the practical effect of the rule of law. If we only play defense we will not weaken the oligopolistic forces. The Supreme Court is still their captive and that needs to be changed if we are going to stop and reverse the authoritarian momentum.
BumRushDaShow
(167,772 posts)More like BOTTOM LINE of the over 1000 or more businesses that sued to overturn the tariffs (although obviously individual cases didn't "make the news" ). The companies couldn't suck up anymore.
It's still a "capitalistic country" and even Roberts apparently realizes that you don't mess with the $$$$ (which is also why Lisa Cook wasn't immediately torpedoed off the Federal Reserve Board).
hay rick
(9,507 posts)Occasionally the founder's plain intent and the interests of the business community are going to land on the same side.
FakeNoose
(41,002 posts)... and most of their rulings are based on precedent. Other than a few way-out wacky ones, they will continue to do that, despite a president's nutty or fascist intentions.
Most of the time, the Supreme Court's decisions mean that the way we've been doing things will continue to be the way we do things. I'm no legal expert, but I've been here almost 75 years, and I've seen a lot of stuff.
angrychair
(11,994 posts)That the US will have to return the tariff money because it was illegal. So who wants to bet that this administration refuses to do that?
FakeNoose
(41,002 posts)Consumers paid prices that were too high, because retailers were being overcharged. Manufacturers and distributers (including importers) were charging higher prices in anticipation of having to pay the foreign manufacturers. The foreign manufacturers from China and elsewhere were getting their arms twisted by the US government. They had to pay a tariff just to ship their products into the US, and then they had to raise their prices to the buyers to cover that cost.
So now, how does Uncle Sam compensate all these people who were overcharged?
I just bought a package of Colombian coffee for $10 and it should have cost maybe $7 because that's what I paid before Chump started this bullshit. The coffee isn't worth $3 more now, but that $3 represents the tariffs that Colombia (and other exporters) had to pay. Do I get a $3 refund on every package of coffee that I've purchased in the last year? How can the government compensate every consumer that has purchased coffee in the past 12 months? And that's just one product. The tariffs are on just about everything we're buying right now.
angrychair
(11,994 posts)But the complications are not my problem. It is their problem. Class action lawsuits never come close to making people whole but typically the individual share is representative of the money lost.
FakeNoose
(41,002 posts)Whether or not it will ever happen, well ....
NNadir
(37,673 posts)...revolutionaries in change of dismantling the US Constitution a "court," are starting to see which way the wind is blowing.
If the rule of law is ever reestablished in this country, in spite of their efforts to destroy it, there may be hell to pay.
Certainly the highly corrupt Clarence Thomas should be subject to impeachment, and frat boy Kavanaugh, who perjury himself during the joke of his confirmation hearings should be hell to pay.
BumRushDaShow
(167,772 posts)Bayard
(29,135 posts)I'll take the win, but we know any refund would come from taxpayer money.
Countries all over the world are pointing and laughing!
FakeNoose
(41,002 posts)I know we'll never see any refunds from the overcharges we've already paid in the last year. That money is already gone. And retailers were caught in the middle, they held off raising prices as long as they could.
US manufacturers and importers were and are raising their prices WHETHER OR NOT their goods were charged a tariff. They raised prices across the board because they COULD. It has been a money grab from the get-go.
I hope someone does a full expose on this sham very soon. Americans need to know that we're being overcharged for EVERYTHING we buy, including products that were never subject to Chump's tariff charges.
Chump did that!

aggiesal
(10,680 posts)Then he will create a Board of Peace Court & only that court can judge his tariffs.
I'll get my way. So there!
LilElf70
(1,459 posts)Trumps admin is so corrupt. Don't obey laws? Don't obey the constitution? Why aren't these people in jail?
Bluetus
(2,563 posts)All elected Dems should race to the side of businesses who deserve to claw back any tariffs they have paid since Trump took office. Chaos? Hell yes. Let's make Trump's life miserable. We can be on the same side of the table with small businesses up to Amazon. Force Trump to take the anti-business position.
And that is just the first step. There are other clawbacks. We should demand that the taxpayers clawback the cost of the East Wing that Trump illegally destroyed. Claw back the money he has pocketed from Venezuelan oil. Claw back the money he is pocketing from the Gaza genocide and land grab.
Claw back the 747 he illegally accepted as an emolument.
Clawback is the word. Use it. One word sums up what everybody is feeling about this gangster.