Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump’s Global Tariffs in Landmark Decision
The court ruled 6-3 that Trump’s reciprocal tariffs were not authorized under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
The Supreme Court on Feb. 20 ruled 6–3 that some of President Donald Trump’s global tariffs exceeded an emergency powers law passed by Congress. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, stating that Trump’s tariffs didn’t fit with the language of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Trump had invoked that law to impose a series of tariffs, including reciprocal rates on dozens of countries and drug trafficking levies on Mexico, Canada, and China.
The administration argued that the law’s wording allowed tariffs by permitting the president to “regulate ... importation.”
“The President asserts the independent power to impose tariffs on imports from any country, of any product, at any rate, for any amount of time,” Roberts said. “Those words cannot bear such weight.”
Justices Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and Samuel Alito dissented.
Kavanaugh penned a dissent in which he said that “tariffs are a traditional and common tool to regulate importation.”
Justice Elena Kagan wrote a separate opinion that was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
The justices differed in how they applied something known as the “major questions doctrine,” which says Congress must be very clear if it wishes to delegate questions of major economic or political importance to the president. This is the doctrine that the Supreme Court used to strike down former President Joe Biden’s sweeping student loan forgiveness.
Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch joined Roberts in stating that Congress would have needed to be clearer in its language if it intended for presidents to issue these types of tariffs. Kavanaugh, meanwhile, suggested that doctrine shouldn’t apply to foreign affairs.
“In the foreign affairs realm, courts recognize that Congress often deliberately grants flexibility and discretion to the President to pursue America’s interests,” he said.
Kavanaugh also said refunding those impacted by tariffs would likely be a “mess.”
“The interim effects of the Court’s decision could be substantial,” he said. “The United States may be required to refund billions of dollars to importers who paid the IEEPA tariffs, even though some importers may have already passed on costs to consumers or others.”
With trillions of dollars at stake, the decision could have major implications for the nation’s economy. Trump’s tariffs have targeted a broad range of activities, but the ones in this case focused on combating drug trafficking and correcting trade imbalances with other countries.
In the weeks leading up to the decision, Trump repeatedly portrayed his tariffs as important for the nation’s economic and financial health.
“Pray that the United States Supreme Court allows our country to continue its unprecedented march toward unparalleled greatness!” he wrote in all caps in a Jan. 6 post on Truth Social. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has said that the government could invoke other authorities to implement tariffs, although they are “not as efficient, not as powerful.” U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer similarly indicated in December that the administration had a backup plan. Tariffs have helped the United States collect nearly $99 billion so far this fiscal year, which started on Oct. 1, 2025, according to the Daily Treasury Statement published on Jan. 7. During oral argument on Nov. 5, 2025, the justices seemed skeptical of Trump’s bid to use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to implement those tariffs.
The law allows presidents to regulate imports during times of emergency, but it was questionable whether that regulation included tariffs, and, in particular, Trump’s large-scale tariffs.
Multiple federal courts had ruled that Trump’s tariffs exceeded what was allowed under the law.
Days after oral argument, Trump indicated in a Nov. 11 post on Truth Social that a negative decision by the Supreme Court could implicate trillions of dollars. “The ‘unwind’ in the event of a negative decision on Tariffs, would be, including investments made, to be made, and return of funds, in excess of 3 Trillion Dollars,” he said.
He added that the situation “would truly become an insurmountable National Security Event, and devastating to the future of our Country - Possibly non-sustainable!”
SIGforum: For all your needs! Imagine our influence if every gun owner in America was an NRA member! Click the box>>>
The Supreme Court overturned the administration’s use of emergency powers to implement tariffs.
President Donald Trump said the Supreme Court’s tariff ruling was “deeply disappointing.”
“I’m ashamed of certain members of the court—absolutely ashamed for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country,” the president told reporters at a Feb. 20 press briefing.
He teased that the administration could use other methods to implement tariffs on U.S. trading partners.
Live statement here, but I'm not sure you can access if not a member.
Economists: Supreme Court May Force $175B Tariff Refunds
More than $175 billion in U.S. tariff collections are at risk of being refunded now that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against President Donald Trump's broad emergency tariffs, Penn-Wharton Budget Model economists said Friday.
Their estimate, produced at Reuters’ request ahead of the ruling, was derived from a ground-up forecasting model using tariff rates by product and country for specific duties imposed by Trump, including those under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
Lysle Boller, senior economist for the non-partisan Penn-Wharton Budget Model (PWBM) at the University of Pennsylvania, said the model calculates revenue based on detailed import data.
The Supreme Court ruled Friday that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize a president to impose sweeping tariffs, delivering a major rebuke to President Donald Trump's use of emergency powers to reshape U.S. trade policy.
With the tariffs now struck down, importers are expected to seek refunds from U.S. Customs and Border Protection for duties paid over the past year.
Trump has touted the revenue from his tariffs, which the Congressional Budget Office estimates at about $300 billion annually over the next decade.
Refunds of $175 billion would exceed the combined fiscal 2025 budgets of the Department of Transportation, at $127.6 billion, and the Department of Justice, at $44.9 billion.
Boller said the PWBM model, built for long-term forecasts, cross-references U.S. Census Bureau import data covering about 11,000 product categories across 233 countries.
It applies statistical forecasting methods to estimate roughly $500 million in IEEPA-based revenue collected daily.
As of Thursday, the model estimated $179 billion in total IEEPA receipts since Trump began imposing tariffs under that law in February 2025.
PWBM also extrapolated past CBP data on IEEPA duty assessments as a share of overall Treasury customs receipts, producing a similar estimate of $175 billion to $176 billion.
CBP last published its IEEPA-related customs assessments on December 14, showing $133.5 billion at risk since the first duties were imposed.
Net duty collections are typically slightly lower because assessments are subject to adjustments and corrections that can result in refunds.
The model also adjusts quickly for abrupt tariff changes, including trade deals that reduce import duty rates for certain countries.
For example, South Korea’s U.S. tariff rate dropped to 15% from 25% in November.
The model captured other changes under IEEPA, such as a 40% tariff imposed last August on Brazil over the prosecution of Trump ally and former President Jair Bolsonaro.
It also reflected the removal of duties on Brazilian coffee, beef, and cocoa in November.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told Reuters in January that the Treasury could easily cover any tariff refunds, though he is confident the Supreme Court will uphold the IEEPA tariffs.
The Treasury is planning to maintain large cash balances, targeting $850 billion at the end of March and $900 billion at the end of June.
In recent months, Treasury has reported customs receipts up roughly $20 billion per month compared with prior-year periods before the duties were imposed.
Total customs receipts reached about $27.7 billion in January.
Trump administration officials have said they would use alternative tariff authorities to reinstate tariffs if the court declares the IEEPA-based tariffs illegal.
SIGforum: For all your needs! Imagine our influence if every gun owner in America was an NRA member! Click the box>>>
"NEITHER the statutory text nor the Constitution provide a basis for ruling against the President."
I will say it's nice having Thomas on the Court I can off-load my thinking to whatever position he's taken is most assuredly the one I'd hold.
_____________________________________________ Proverbs 3:31 "Envy thou not the oppressor, and choose none of his ways."
February 20, 2026, 03:38 PM
NapoleonSolo
Hannity said it well a while ago today. Thomas and Kavanaugh laid out how Trump can pivot legally and that makes the ruling a moot point.Still, the Supreme Court has become far too political and and are thinking emotionally and not lawfully.
“Our actions may be impeded... But there can be no impeding our intentions or our dispositions. Because we can accommodate and adapt. The mind adapts and converts to its own purposes the obstacle to our acting.
Is there any other way to remove the remaining left-leaning justices outside of impeachment proceedings?
February 20, 2026, 04:21 PM
12131
^^^ Impeaching them on what legal basis? Yeah, legal basis, not just because we hate their rulings.
Q
February 20, 2026, 04:24 PM
Ogie
quote:
Originally posted by Carpentermaass84: Is there any other way to remove the remaining left-leaning justices outside of impeachment proceedings?
What kind of a question is that?
February 20, 2026, 05:03 PM
Carpentermaass84
quote:
Originally posted by Ogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Carpentermaass84: Is there any other way to remove the remaining left-leaning justices outside of impeachment proceedings?
What kind of a question is that?
I'm interested in saving this country and that means removing any roadblocks that stand in Trump's way. Some of these justices vote based on ideology and are not driven by factual interpretation of the constitution.
February 20, 2026, 06:00 PM
sigspecops
If we had a way to remove justices, they could and would use the same way.
No one's life, liberty or property is safe while the legislature is in session.- Mark Twain
February 20, 2026, 06:02 PM
12131
^^^^ Carpentermaass84, man, you speak just like the leftists who don’t like the “right” rulings so they want to pack the court. So, pray tell, how are you going to “remove these roadblocks” legally? There are only three ways.
1. They retire. Unlikely to happen.
2. They croak. Best chance is Sotomayor, but even with her, it’s unlikely to happen anytime soon.
3. Impeachment. Zero legal basis for it. Zero. No one is going to have the gut to do it, unless there’s some clear cut reason. Disagreeing with their opinion/ruling is not ground for impeachment.
Q
February 20, 2026, 06:28 PM
mikeyspizza
quote:
Originally posted by Fly-Sig: Watergate was at first a nothing burger to the public until the media started heavily pushing the story.
Yea, because Nixon was a Republican. They heavily push everything anti-Trump, but nothing that exonerates him or any of his many accomplishments.
February 20, 2026, 06:44 PM
mikeyspizza
Haven't seen the media crying about blowing up drug boats since we snatched Maduro, so I thought we done blowed them all up, or we quit or they quit. Apparently not.
Originally posted by Carpentermaass84: Is there any other way to remove the remaining left-leaning justices outside of impeachment proceedings?
You know the answer to that question.
Don't misunderstand me. A second American Revolution is called for, and I'm not talking about an ideological revolution.
Since it is impossible to reason with leftists, hanging them up in trees is the only solution, but it would take a complete collapse of the rule of law for that to happen.
When it comes to that, you can volunteer for a role in the process; finding stout limbs, or perhaps knotting the hemp- maybe crafting the placards to nail to their commie chests: "Man Burner and Horse Theef" and the like.
Until that time, don't play games here.
February 20, 2026, 10:42 PM
Gustofer
quote:
Originally posted by NapoleonSolo: Hannity said it well a while ago today.
People still listen to what Hannity has to say?
He's a clown.This message has been edited. Last edited by: Gustofer,
________________________________________________________ It is long past time for a Convention of States. The Founding Fathers gave us this tool to fix an out of control government and we need to use it.
February 21, 2026, 07:02 AM
NapoleonSolo
I rarely listen to Hannity these days but tuned in for a few minutes yesterday. I honestly think he says the same thing over and over again these days. I am not sure Rush will ever be replaced.
“Our actions may be impeded... But there can be no impeding our intentions or our dispositions. Because we can accommodate and adapt. The mind adapts and converts to its own purposes the obstacle to our acting.
