US Supreme Court strikes down President Trump’s emergency tariffs in 6–3 ruling, citing overreach
In a 6–3 ruling, the justices upheld a lower court decision that found Trump had exceeded his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 statute that allows a president to regulate commerce during a declared national emergency.
- Feb 20, 2026,
- Updated Feb 20, 2026 9:44 PM IST
The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday struck down President Donald Trump’s broad-based tariffs imposed under a law intended for national emergencies, delivering a major setback to one of the most expansive assertions of executive authority in recent years.
In a 6–3 ruling, the justices upheld a lower court decision that found Trump had exceeded his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 statute that allows a president to regulate commerce during a declared national emergency, Reuters reported on Friday. The case was brought by a group of businesses affected by the tariffs along with 12 U.S. states, most of them led by Democratic governors, who challenged Trump’s unilateral use of the law to impose import taxes.
What about US trade policy
The ruling carries significant implications for U.S. trade policy and the global economy. Tariffs were central to Trump’s economic and foreign policy strategy during his second term. He used them as a tool to pressure trading partners and reshape trade relationships, triggering a global trade dispute that unsettled financial markets and contributed to economic uncertainty worldwide.
Trump’s administration had projected that the tariffs would raise trillions of dollars over the coming decade. However, official tariff collection data has not been released since December 14.
According to estimates published on Friday by economists at the Penn-Wharton Budget Model, more than $175 billion had been collected under tariffs imposed through IEEPA. Following the Supreme Court’s ruling, those amounts may need to be refunded.
IEEPA and tariffs
The US Constitution assigns the power to levy taxes and tariffs to Congress, not the president. Rather than seeking congressional approval, Trump invoked IEEPA to impose tariffs on nearly all U.S. trading partners. While he also introduced additional tariffs under other statutory authorities, those were not part of this case. Government data from October to mid-December indicates that tariffs imposed under other laws accounted for roughly one-third of total tariff revenue during that period.
IEEPA permits a president to regulate economic transactions after declaring a national emergency. Trump became the first U.S. president to use the law to impose sweeping tariffs. The decision reflects judicial limits on executive power, particularly in areas where constitutional authority is explicitly assigned to Congress.
The President defended the tariffs as essential to protecting US economic security, warning that the country would be weakened without them. In November, he told reporters that without his tariff measures, “the rest of the world would laugh at us because they've used tariffs against us for years and took advantage of us.” He argued that the United States had been treated unfairly by several countries, including China, the world’s second-largest economy.
What's next
After the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case in November, Trump signaled that his administration was preparing contingency plans if the ruling went against him. “We’ll have to develop a ‘game two’ plan,” he told reporters.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and other administration officials indicated that the White House would explore alternative legal pathways to preserve as many of the tariffs as possible. These options include invoking statutory provisions that allow tariffs on imports deemed to threaten U.S. national security, as well as measures permitting retaliatory action against trading partners found by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to have engaged in unfair trade practices.
Invoking IEEPA
However, these alternatives do not offer the same breadth or speed as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which Trump had relied upon. Legal analysts note that other statutes may not enable the administration to reimpose tariffs at the same scale or with the same immediacy.
By invoking IEEPA, Trump claimed the authority to impose tariffs instantly on goods from virtually any trading partner under a declared national emergency. That approach significantly increased U.S. leverage in trade negotiations. Several foreign leaders traveled to Washington seeking to negotiate trade arrangements, some of which included pledges of substantial investments or expanded market access for American firms.
At the same time, the aggressive use of tariffs as a foreign policy tool strained relations with multiple countries, including long-standing U.S. allies.
Historically, IEEPA has been used to impose economic sanctions on adversaries or freeze foreign assets. The statute does not explicitly mention tariffs. Trump’s Justice Department argued that the law’s language authorizing the president to “regulate” imports during a national emergency encompassed the power to impose tariffs.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday struck down President Donald Trump’s broad-based tariffs imposed under a law intended for national emergencies, delivering a major setback to one of the most expansive assertions of executive authority in recent years.
In a 6–3 ruling, the justices upheld a lower court decision that found Trump had exceeded his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 statute that allows a president to regulate commerce during a declared national emergency, Reuters reported on Friday. The case was brought by a group of businesses affected by the tariffs along with 12 U.S. states, most of them led by Democratic governors, who challenged Trump’s unilateral use of the law to impose import taxes.
What about US trade policy
The ruling carries significant implications for U.S. trade policy and the global economy. Tariffs were central to Trump’s economic and foreign policy strategy during his second term. He used them as a tool to pressure trading partners and reshape trade relationships, triggering a global trade dispute that unsettled financial markets and contributed to economic uncertainty worldwide.
Trump’s administration had projected that the tariffs would raise trillions of dollars over the coming decade. However, official tariff collection data has not been released since December 14.
According to estimates published on Friday by economists at the Penn-Wharton Budget Model, more than $175 billion had been collected under tariffs imposed through IEEPA. Following the Supreme Court’s ruling, those amounts may need to be refunded.
IEEPA and tariffs
The US Constitution assigns the power to levy taxes and tariffs to Congress, not the president. Rather than seeking congressional approval, Trump invoked IEEPA to impose tariffs on nearly all U.S. trading partners. While he also introduced additional tariffs under other statutory authorities, those were not part of this case. Government data from October to mid-December indicates that tariffs imposed under other laws accounted for roughly one-third of total tariff revenue during that period.
IEEPA permits a president to regulate economic transactions after declaring a national emergency. Trump became the first U.S. president to use the law to impose sweeping tariffs. The decision reflects judicial limits on executive power, particularly in areas where constitutional authority is explicitly assigned to Congress.
The President defended the tariffs as essential to protecting US economic security, warning that the country would be weakened without them. In November, he told reporters that without his tariff measures, “the rest of the world would laugh at us because they've used tariffs against us for years and took advantage of us.” He argued that the United States had been treated unfairly by several countries, including China, the world’s second-largest economy.
What's next
After the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case in November, Trump signaled that his administration was preparing contingency plans if the ruling went against him. “We’ll have to develop a ‘game two’ plan,” he told reporters.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and other administration officials indicated that the White House would explore alternative legal pathways to preserve as many of the tariffs as possible. These options include invoking statutory provisions that allow tariffs on imports deemed to threaten U.S. national security, as well as measures permitting retaliatory action against trading partners found by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to have engaged in unfair trade practices.
Invoking IEEPA
However, these alternatives do not offer the same breadth or speed as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which Trump had relied upon. Legal analysts note that other statutes may not enable the administration to reimpose tariffs at the same scale or with the same immediacy.
By invoking IEEPA, Trump claimed the authority to impose tariffs instantly on goods from virtually any trading partner under a declared national emergency. That approach significantly increased U.S. leverage in trade negotiations. Several foreign leaders traveled to Washington seeking to negotiate trade arrangements, some of which included pledges of substantial investments or expanded market access for American firms.
At the same time, the aggressive use of tariffs as a foreign policy tool strained relations with multiple countries, including long-standing U.S. allies.
Historically, IEEPA has been used to impose economic sanctions on adversaries or freeze foreign assets. The statute does not explicitly mention tariffs. Trump’s Justice Department argued that the law’s language authorizing the president to “regulate” imports during a national emergency encompassed the power to impose tariffs.