The Supreme Court delivered a landmark decision. This ruling occurred on Friday, February 20, 2026. President Trump’s sweeping global tariffs were struck down. This marked a significant loss for his economic agenda. The majority found tariffs unconstitutional for the president to impose unilaterally. The Court cited the U.S. Constitution. It clearly grants Congress the power to tax. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion. He stated the Framers did not give taxing power to the Executive Branch.
The tariffs were enacted under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Trump used this law frequently. He cited national security and trade deficits. These tariffs had been a central plank of his policy. They impacted nearly all U.S. trading partners. The average U.S. tariff rate had risen dramatically. This increased costs for businesses and consumers nationwide.
Lead plaintiffs in the case included Chicago-based toy companies. Learning Resources and hand2mind challenged the tariffs. Other businesses and a coalition of state governments also sued. They argued the administration lacked authority. The Court agreed. It found the law did not grant the president power to levy tariffs. The taxing power clearly belongs to Congress. This decision reasserts a core constitutional principle. It emphasizes the separation of powers.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented. Justice Kavanaugh wrote that the tariffs were lawful policy. He argued the Court should not decide policy matters. The majority opinion was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. This coalition included both liberal and conservative justices.
President Trump reacted strongly to the ruling. He called the decision “deeply disappointing.” He expressed shame for “certain members of the court.” Trump also criticized justices appointed by Democratic presidents. He referred to them as a “disgrace.” However, he also praised the dissenting justices for their “strength and wisdom.”
Despite the Court’s ruling, Trump vowed to continue his trade policies. He announced new measures. These include a 10% global tariff. He plans to impose this under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. This law has a 150-day limit. Trump also intends to launch new investigations. These will be under Section 301 for unfair trade practices. These actions signal a continued focus on tariffs. However, these new tariffs face different legal constraints.
The fashion industry, among others, felt the impact of these tariffs. Apparel import tariffs had risen sharply. Major fashion brands reported millions in additional costs. For instance, G-III Apparel expected $155 million in expenses. Tapestry faced $160 million in additional costs. These tariffs complicated supply chains. They raised prices for consumers. The ruling offers relief from these specific levies. However, uncertainty remains for businesses. The exact process for refunding billions in collected tariffs is still unresolved. The Court did not mandate refunds. This issue now goes back to lower courts.
This Supreme Court decision is a significant check. It limits presidential authority. It firmly places the power to tax with Congress. The administration’s use of emergency powers for broad tariffs is now curtailed. However, Trump’s stated intent to use other legal avenues suggests ongoing trade policy battles. The News on this event highlights a major shift. It signals a new chapter in trade law. The long-term effects on global trade and the economy are still unfolding.
In summary, the Supreme Court’s ruling re-establishes Congress’s constitutional taxing power. It struck down President Trump’s tariffs imposed under IEEPA. Trump plans to use alternative authorities. This creates a period of adjustment for global trade. The fashion industry and many other sectors await further developments.
