The U . S . Supreme Court tariff ruling shows American checks and balances are still at work

theconversation.com · Feb 26, 2026 · Collected from GDELT

Full Article

As we approach the halfway point of U.S. President Donald Trump’s second — and constitutionally last — term in office, Canadian polls reveal an increasingly dark and pessimistic view of Canada’s relationship and future with the United States. As a recent public opinion poll found, Canadians are 3.5 times more likely to see the U.S. as a threat to Canadian security than China. While these attitudes are understandable in light of recent U.S. policy, they may overstate the extent to which American democratic institutions and constitutional checks on presidential authority have actually collapsed. Claims of democratic decline A number of Canadian pundits and analysts have claimed the U.S. has become — or is on the cusp of becoming — a de facto dictatorship where the rule of law and checks and balances no longer operate effectively or at all. But to equate controversial or legally contested executive actions with the collapse of 250 years of constitutional democracy risks conflating the overreach of a singular president with the end of 250 years of constitutional democracy. Core American institutions remain operational. Committees of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate continue to meet, debate and pass bills and budgets weekly, and federal and superior courts continue to issue rulings daily. Most importantly, the midterm elections will be held this November in all 435 congressional districts. One-third of the 100 U.S. Senators are up for re-election and 36 states will have elections for governor in addition to a plethora of state legislature elections. Real Clear Politics publishes the average of major polls, which reveals Republicans are five per cent behind generic congressional contests with Democratic opponents. The Supreme Court and tariff authority One of the most consequential institutional checks on presidential power occurred recently when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Trump’s use of the emergency powers legislation to enact tariffs was illegal. The ruling invalidated a large swath of tariffs imposed since early 2025, halting tariff collections under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and opening the door to potential refunds for affected businesses. A U.S. flag files at the Port of Long Beach on Feb. 20, 2026, in Long Beach, Calif. (AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes) The court’s decision was symbolically very important. It reasserted the primacy of rule of law in finding Trump acted illegally and reaffirmed that U.S. Congress possesses the constitutional authority to impose taxes, which includes tariffs. However, it’s important to note that Canada and other trading countries are not free of further tariffs, as Trump can apply new tariffs using other laws. As a case in point, following the Supreme Court’s decision, Trump enacted a 10 per cent worldwide tariff using Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act. Limits on executive power This brings us to a second fundamental check and balance on the U.S. president: that Trump only has approximately 2.5 years left in office as he is term-limited by the U.S. Constitution, despite repeatedly suggesting he might run for a third term in 2028. In addition, the mid-term elections will be held in November. The Republicans hold a narrow majority in both the House of Representatives (218-214) and the Senate (53-47) while Trump’s poll numbers are down considerably. Since at least the Second World War, the party that occupies the presidency typically loses control of the House in the off-year elections to the other political party. It is increasingly likely that the Republicans will lose control of the House in November. This will ensure that Trump, with only two years left in office, will be doubly constrained by budgetary battles and probable impeachment proceedings by the Democrats. If this scenario occurs, any legislative imposition of tariffs to overcome the Supreme Court decision is highly improbable. Trade agreements and Canadian interests The recent Supreme Court decision and the restrictions on Trump’s discretion imposed by Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement demonstrates the urgent necessity to renew it, as it’s up for review this year. The review process has been underway since September of last year, but Trump stalled trade negotiations with Canada in October over an Ontario government ad. Trade agreements do not compel trade, as trade is a voluntary act between consenting corporations. Rather, such agreements provide the framework, or rules, that state what behaviour is legal and what is not. Prime Minister Mark Carney listens as U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a group photo at the G7 Summit in June 2025 in Kananaskis, Alta. (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein) Trade agreements create order and stability in place of chaos, anarchy and massive uncertainty. For export-dependent economies like Canada’s, predictability is itself an economic asset. At the very top of the Canadian government to-do list should be the successful negotiation of a new trade agreement with the U.S. — the largest economy in the world and Canada’s largest trading partner — to reduce the radical, unprecedented uncertainty facing business that is causing an exodus of capital investment. An enduring relationship While there is an urgent need to diversify Canada’s trade, it is unrealistic to suggest Canada can divert most of its $800 billion in bilateral trade with America to other regions. The common refrain that we cannot trust Trump to obey a new treaty is to claim that no agreement — law of the jungle and anarchy — is superior to rules and stability, however inadequate those rules and penalties may be. Canada needs to constrain Trump for the last 2.5 years until the next president is in place who will likely be less confrontational and less hostile to Canada, no matter whether they’re Democratic or Republican. As Henry John Temple, a former prime minister of the United Kingdom, once famously said, a nation has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests. It is the role of national leadership to identify common interests that will become the foundation or zone of agreement. Canada shares an 8,800-kilometre border with the U.S., and a shared history of political, social, cultural and family relationships and exchanges. These deep enduring ties cannot be erased by one singular four-year rogue president.