
On February 20, 2026, the US Supreme Court delivered a historic 6-3 ruling declaring President Trump's sweeping global tariffs unconstitutional, striking down his use of emergency powers to impose duties on trading partners. This landmark decision invalidated a cornerstone of Trump's economic agenda and set the stage for over $100 billion in potential refunds, triggering immediate market reactions and international responses.
9 events · 0 days · 30 source articles
President Trump declared the state of the economy a national emergency and invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose a baseline 10% tariff plus additional 'reciprocal' tariffs on imports from nearly every US trading partner. This 'Liberation Day' announcement represented what his administration called the most significant economic and foreign policy initiative of his second term, fundamentally reshaping global trade relations.
A lower court issued a ruling finding that Trump had exceeded his authority by unilaterally declaring punitive tariffs under IEEPA. The decision challenged the president's broad interpretation of emergency powers, setting up an inevitable appeal to the Supreme Court. This ruling questioned whether peacetime economic conditions could justify invoking emergency statutes designed for wartime crises.
In the months leading up to the Supreme Court decision, the Trump administration began preparing alternative legal pathways to reimpose tariffs under different statutory authorities. Officials made clear they had been doing their homework and were ready to quickly implement new tariffs under other laws that would give the president authority to impose them, anticipating a potential adverse ruling.
The US Supreme Court issued a historic 6-3 decision striking down President Trump's sweeping global tariffs, ruling that IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, finding that the Constitution clearly gives Congress—not the executive branch—the power to impose taxes, including tariffs. Three conservative justices (Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh) dissented, but Trump appointees Gorsuch and Barrett sided with the majority.
The Supreme Court decision paved the way for massive refunds of well over $100 billion already paid by trade partners, with some economists estimating more than $175 billion may need to be refunded. The federal government had been collecting approximately $30 billion in tariffs monthly—four times pre-Trump levels. Anti-tariff groups immediately called for 'full, fast, and automatic' refunds to businesses that had borne the financial burden.
Financial markets responded immediately to the Supreme Court decision with complex reactions. Treasuries and the dollar fell as the improved US fiscal position from tariff revenue was suddenly threatened. Canadian stocks briefly spiked higher before whipsawing, while copper climbed tracking gains in US equity markets. The ruling created immediate uncertainty about future trade policy and economic conditions.
President Trump responded furiously to the Supreme Court decision, alleging without evidence that the court was influenced by foreign interests. He immediately vowed to impose a new 10% global tariff for 150 days to replace the struck-down tariffs, using alternative legal authorities his administration had prepared. Trump's defiant response signaled he would not accept the ruling as ending his tariff agenda.
The European Union responded to the bombshell ruling by calling for stability in the transatlantic trade relationship and seeking clarity on the Trump administration's next steps. European Commission Deputy Chief Spokesperson Olof Gill emphasized that businesses on both sides of the Atlantic depend on stability and predictability, while Brussels advocated for lowering tariffs and reducing trade barriers.
Trade experts and economists cautioned that despite the Supreme Court ruling, there would be no return to pre-Trump business as usual. The decision invalidated only tariffs imposed under IEEPA, not all of Trump's trade measures, and his administration's prepared alternatives could quickly restore much of the tariff regime. The ruling represented a check on presidential power rather than an end to Trump's protectionist trade agenda, leaving the global trade order still fundamentally disrupted.