The Supreme Court of the United States ruled 6–3 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. The decision invalidates the Administration’s “reciprocal” tariffs imposed under IEEPA on most U.S. trading partners.
“We claim no special competence in matters of economics or foreign affairs. We claim only, as we must, the limited role assigned to us by Article III of the Constitution. Fulfilling that role, we hold that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.”
Chief Justice John Roberts authored the opinion for the majority. Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas dissented.
The president's reliance on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) hinged on the appearance of "two words separated by 16 others" within the statute, namely "regulate" and "importation," as Chief Justice Roberts noted at the top of Friday's opinion.
Based on the presence of the words in IEEPA, "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," the opinion continues. "Those words cannot bear such weight."
1) No tariff power in IEEPA.
IEEPA permits the President to “regulate” imports and financial transactions to address an “unusual and extraordinary threat.” The majority held that this language does not extend to imposing duties. Tariffs are taxes on imports and implicate Congress’s Article I power over duties and commerce. The Court rejected the argument that a general authority to regulate imports during emergencies includes the power to levy tariffs.
2) Text and structure control.
The opinion reads IEEPA in light of the broader statutory scheme: when Congress has intended to delegate tariff authority, it has done so expressly (e.g., Section 232; Section 301). The absence of explicit tariff language in IEEPA was dispositive.
3) Separation of powers.
The Court emphasized its limited constitutional role under Article III and reaffirmed that tariff-setting is a core legislative function. It declined to defer to executive claims of economic or foreign-affairs necessity where the statute does not clearly confer the power exercised.
President Trump invoked IEEPA to:
Impose reciprocal tariffs globally, citing the size of the U.S. trade deficit as a national security emergency; and
Levy additional tariffs on China, Canada, and Mexico, citing fentanyl trafficking.
The Court did not accept that IEEPA’s emergency authorities encompass tariff imposition.
Invalidated:
IEEPA-based reciprocal tariffs and related measures.
Unaffected:
Tariffs imposed under Section 232 (national security) and other specific trade statutes.
The Executive’s ability to pursue tariffs under Section 301, Section 122, Section 338, or other authorities, subject to statutory procedures.
Administration officials have indicated that alternative statutes will be used to maintain tariffs.
The ruling opens the door for importers to seek refunds. The Treasury Department has reported collecting more than $133 billion under the IEEPA tariffs. The mechanics and scope of refunds remain unresolved and may require further litigation or administrative guidance.
The dissent argued that the President’s foreign-affairs authority and IEEPA’s broad emergency language should permit tariff measures in response to national threats. It warned of disruption from refund claims and potential uncertainty for trade arrangements negotiated under the leverage of tariffs.
Immediate compliance impact: IEEPA tariff entries are invalidated; customs and refund procedures will determine next steps.
Litigation risk: Refund claims could be extensive; courts may confront pass-through and reliance questions.
Policy trajectory: Expect rapid consideration of alternative tariff authorities with more explicit statutory grounding.
Opinion: [Case No. 24-1287] (Feb. 20, 2026), available at the Court’s website.
In a press briefing Friday afternnon, Mr. Trump called the ruling a “disgrace” and said he was “deeply disappointed” with the high court’s action.
The President singled out specific justices who joined the majority, characterizing their votes as lacking courage and failing the country. He also noted that the delay in issuing the opinion increased the amount of tariff revenue subject to potential refund, a figure some estimate could exceed $175 billion.
“I am ashamed of certain members of the Court for not having the courage to do what is right for our country,” the President said, criticizing the majority alliance that included two justices he himself appointed.
In the same briefing, the President signaled the administration’s intent to pursue alternative statutory authorities to maintain and expand tariffs. Shortly after the ruling, he announced plans to implement a 10 percent global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 for 150 days and to initiate new investigations under Section 301 to address alleged unfair trade practices, according to Reuters reporting.
Mr. Trump described these tools as “great alternatives” and said they would allow the United States to continue defending its economic interests:
“We have alternatives, great alternatives. We’ll take in more money and we’ll be a lot stronger for it.”
U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer announced that the Trump Administration will immediately impose a temporary 10 percent import surcharge under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, while launching a broad new round of investigations under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 targeting what it described as “unjustifiable, unreasonable, discriminatory, and burdensome” trade practices.
Greer said the accelerated Section 301 probes will examine issues including
If unfair practices are confirmed, tariffs may be imposed. The Administration will also continue existing Section 301 investigations involving Brazil and China and maintain tariffs currently in place under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, while completing pending national-security investigations.
The President acknowledged the legal uncertainty around refunding tariffs already collected under IEEPA but argued that any such process would be complex and burdensome:
“It will be almost impossible for our country to pay back every dollar,” he said, referencing legal analyses that warn of an administratively fraught refund process.
Administration officials have estimated that upwards of $133 billion in tariff revenues have been collected to date under the IEEPA framework.
In a prepared speech to the Economic Club of Dallas delivered Friday afternoon, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the Trump administration “will invoke alternative legal authorities to replace the IEEPA tariffs.”
“Treasury’s estimates show that the use of Section 122 authority, combined with potentially enhanced Section 232 and Section 301 tariffs will result in virtually unchanged tariff revenue in 2026,” he said.
Nobel Prize winning Trade Ecomomist Paul Krugman notes:
"I don’t see, by the way, how such alternatives would obviate the need to refund the tariffs already collected. If you seized money without constitutional authority, finding other revenue sources going forward doesn’t make the original seizure legal."
Massachusetts Senator Edward J. Markey, Ranking Member said in a statement “This case was Small Businesses v. Trump, and small businesses won....It is a moral obligation for this administration to return every last cent taken from small businesses by this illegal tax.”
New York Representative Gregory W. Meeks, Ranking Member, House Foreign Affairs Committee said in a statement: “IEEPA was never meant to be used to impose tariffs. The Court has now made clear that Trump’s actions exceeded the law.”
Virginia Senator Tim Kaine said in a statement “The Supreme Court did its job here in upholding the bedrock principle of separation of powers.”
House Speaker Mike Johnson said Congress and the White House will "determine the best path forward in the coming weeks," while
Utah Senator John Curtis told The New York Times: “Despite all the noise of the moment, the founders’ system of checks and balances remains strong nearly 250 years later...Several questions remain unanswered, including what happens to the revenue already collected.”
Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee in a statement “Congress needs to reassert its constitutional role over commerce.”
Ohio Senator Bernie Moreno told The New York Times: The ruling was “outrageous” and should be reversed legislatively.
At The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Neil Bradley, Executive Vice President and Chief Policy Officer said in a statement:
“The Supreme Court’s decision is welcome news for businesses and consumers. Over the past year, the Chamber has been working with small and midsize businesses around the country that have seen significant cost increases and supply chain disruptions as a result of these tariffs. Swift refunds of the impermissible tariffs will be meaningful for the more than 200,000 small business importers in this country and will help support stronger economic growth this year.
National Retail Federation, Executive Vice President David French
Statement: https://nrf.com/media-center
The ruling “provides much-needed certainty for U.S. businesses and manufacturers.”
Refunds “will serve as an economic boost.”
National Taxpayers Union, Bryan Riley, Director of the Free Trade Initiative
Statement: https://www.ntu.org/publications/detail/national-taxpayers-union-applauds-supreme-court-tariff-ruling
“If left in place, the tariffs would have cost $2.5 trillion over the next 11 years.”
“This ruling will provide taxpayers with welcome relief.”
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here