Supreme Court strikes down Trump’s sweeping tariffs, sparking fierce
pushback and vow of new levies
[February 21, 2026]
By LINDSAY WHITEHURST
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court struck down President Donald Trump's
far-reaching global tariffs on Friday, handing him a stinging loss that
sparked a furious attack on the court he helped shape.
Trump said he was “absolutely ashamed” of some justices who ruled 6-3
against him, calling them “disloyal to our Constitution" and “lapdogs."
At one point he even raised the specter of foreign influence without
citing any evidence.
The decision could have ripple effects on economies around the globe
after Trump's moves to remake post-World War II trading alliances by
wielding tariffs as a weapon.
But an unbowed Trump pledged to impose a new global 10% tariff under a
law that's restricted to 150 days and has never been used to apply
tariffs before.
“Their decision is incorrect,” he said. “But it doesn’t matter because
we have very powerful alternatives.”
The court's ruling found tariffs that Trump imposed under an emergency
powers law were unconstitutional, including the sweeping “reciprocal”
tariffs he levied on nearly every other country.
Trump appointed three of the justices on the nation’s highest court
during his first term, and has scored a series of short-term wins that
have allowed him to move ahead with key policies.
Tariffs, though, were the first major piece of Trump's broad agenda to
come squarely before the Supreme Court for a final ruling, after lower
courts had also sided against the president.
The majority found that it is unconstitutional for the president to
unilaterally set and change tariffs because taxation power clearly
belongs to Congress. “The Framers did not vest any part of the taxing
power in the Executive Branch,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote.
Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented.
“The tariffs at issue here may or may not be wise policy. But as a
matter of text, history, and precedent, they are clearly lawful,”
Kavanaugh wrote. Trump praised his 63-page dissent as “genius.”
The court majority did not address whether businesses could get refunded
for the billions they have collectively paid in tariffs. Many companies,
including the big-box warehouse chain Costco, have already lined up in
lower courts to demand refunds. Kavanaugh noted the process could be
complicated.
“The Court says nothing today about whether, and if so how, the
Government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has
collected from importers. But that process is likely to be a ‘mess,’ as
was acknowledged at oral argument,” he wrote.
The Treasury had collected more than $133 billion from the import taxes
the president has imposed under the emergency powers law as of December,
federal data shows. The impact over the next decade has been estimated
at some $3 trillion.
The tariffs decision doesn’t stop Trump from imposing duties under other
laws. Those have more limitations on the speed and severity of Trump’s
actions, but the president said they would still allow him to “charge
much more” than he had before.
Vice President JD Vance called the high court decision “lawlessness” in
a post on X.
Questions about what Trump can do next
Still, the ruling is a “complete and total victory" for the challengers,
said Neal Katyal, who argued the case on behalf of a group of small
businesses.
“It’s a reaffirmation of our deepest constitutional values and the idea
that Congress, not any one man, controls the power to tax the American
people,” he said.
It wasn’t immediately clear how the decision restricting Trump’s power
to unilaterally set and change tariffs might affect trade deals with
other countries.
“We remain in close contact with the U.S. Administration as we seek
clarity on the steps they intend to take in response to this ruling,”
European Commission spokesman Olof Gill said, adding that the body would
keep pushing for lower tariffs.
The Supreme Court ruling comes after victories on the court’s emergency
docket have allowed Trump to push ahead with extraordinary flexes of
executive power on issues ranging from immigration enforcement to major
federal funding cuts.
[to top of second column]
|
President Donald Trump speaks during a press briefing at the White
House, Friday, Feb. 20, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
The Republican president had long been vocal about the tariffs case,
calling it one of the most important in U.S. history and saying a
ruling against him would be an economic body blow to the country.
But legal opposition crossed the political spectrum, including
libertarian and pro-business groups that are typically aligned with
the GOP. Polling has found tariffs aren't broadly popular with the
public, amid wider voter concern about affordability.
While the Constitution gives Congress the power to levy tariffs, the
Trump administration argued that a 1977 law allowing the president
to regulate importation during emergencies also allows him to set
import duties. Other presidents have used the law dozens of times,
often to impose sanctions, but Trump was the first president to
invoke it for tariffs.
“And the fact that no President has ever found such power in IEEPA
is strong evidence that it does not exist,” Roberts wrote, using an
acronym for the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
Trump set what he called "reciprocal" tariffs on most countries in
April 2025 to address trade deficits that he declared a national
emergency. Those came after he imposed duties on Canada, China and
Mexico, ostensibly to address a drug trafficking emergency.
A series of lawsuits followed, including a case from a dozen largely
Democratic-leaning states and others from small businesses selling
everything from plumbing supplies to women’s cycling apparel.
The challengers argued the emergency powers law doesn’t even mention
tariffs and Trump's use of it fails several legal tests, including
one that doomed then-President Joe Biden's $500 billion student loan
forgiveness program.
Justices reject use of emergency powers for tariffs
The three conservative justices in the majority pointed to that
principle, which is called the major questions doctrine. It holds
that Congress must clearly authorize actions of major economic and
political significance.
“There is no exception to the major questions doctrine for emergency
statutes,” Roberts wrote. The three liberal justices formed the rest
of the majority, but didn't join that part of the opinion.
The Trump administration had argued that tariffs are different
because they’re a major part of Trump’s approach to foreign affairs,
an area where the courts should not be second-guessing the
president.
But Roberts, joined by Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett,
brushed that aside, writing that the implications for international
relations don't change the legal principle.
Small businesses celebrated the ruling, with the National Retail
Federation saying it provides “much needed certainty.”
Illinois toy company Learning Resources was among the businesses
challenging the tariffs in court. CEO Rick Woldenberg said he
expected Trump's new tariffs but hoped there might be more
constraint in the future, both legal and political. “Somebody’s got
to pay this bill. Those people that pay the bill are voters,” he
said.
Ann Robinson, who owns Scottish Gourmet in Greensboro, North
Carolina, said she was “doing a happy dance” when she heard the
news.
The 10% baseline tariff on U.K. goods put pressure on Robinson’s
business, costing about $30,000 in the fall season. She’s unsure
about the Trump administration’s next steps, but said she’s
overjoyed for now. “Time to schedule my ‘Say Goodbye to Tariffs'
Sale!”
___
Associated Press writers Mae Anderson and Steve Peoples in New York,
Mark Sherman in Washington and David McHugh in Frankfurt contributed
to this report.
All contents © copyright 2026 Associated Press. All rights reserved |
