How SCOTUS is Trumping Tariffs

credits: MS Now

Trump's tariffs have been an ongoing, polarizing, saga throughout his presidential term. Tariffs, for those unaware, is a tax imposed on imported goods and services. Typically, tariffs increase prices on foreign goods as companies raise the prices for customers to accommodate the tax.

The battle of his tariffs' constitutionality came to a climax in the Supreme Court Case Learning Res., Inc. v. Trump. To describe the majority opinion in the case in one word would be to say "unconstitutional." However, it takes more than one word to understand the full majority opinion, the dissent, and the reactions when this decision hit the media.

SCOTUS Strikes

The Supreme Court of the United States delivered a major blow to President Donald Trump on February 20th, 2026 as they decided that his large berth, sweeping,

John Roberts | credits: NBC News

tariffs exceeded his presidential power. A large part of the court's decision process included the specific law Trump utilized to create his beloved tariffs. He invoked the 1977 International Emergency Economics Powers Act (IEEPA). While the Constitution states that Congress has the power to impose and regulate tariffs, the IEEPA states it is within the sitting president's power to regulate imports and exports in a national emergency. Chief Justice John Roberts authorized the ruling and voted alongside three liberal and two additional conservative justices. Roberts wrote the majority opinion. He explains that although the president has power over tariffs, the Trump administration can not express a moment in time where Congress stated the language of the IEEPA could apply to tariffs. Therefore, tariffs invoked through the IEEPA is beyond the scope of presidential power. This was an unpredicted setback for the administration as the court has held a 6-3 conservative majority for the totality of Trump's second term.

Overall, The court's 6-3 decision ruled the President's over-zealous approach to tariffs in United States trade was, in fact, not permitted under IEEPA. Unfortunately

The Supreme Court Building

for Trump's international economic strategy, this decision invalidates many, but not all, of his imposed tariffs. Some remain in place, like those imposed on steel and aluminum. However two categories of his tariffs have been diminished including reciprocal, or country-by-country, tariffs ranging from 34% on China to a standard 10% baseline for other nations and 25% tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China for their failure to curb the flow of fentanyl. It is important to note the Supreme Court's decision makes no impact on future tariffs the president may want to impose, as long as he invokes another law to do so.

The Dissent

To grasp the full picture of a court decision which gains as much media attention as this, it is important to interpret the dissent as well as the majority opinion.

Clarence Thomas, a deeply conservative member of the court, wrote a dissent highlighting Trump's lack of originality in his interpretation of IEEPA. Thomas explains that

Clarence Thomas | credits: NYT

there has not been a presidential administration which has interpreted language including "regulate... importation" to exclude tariffs. Within this idea, he emphasizes that President Nixon utilized the same "regulate... importation" language present in the IEEPA as a base to impose tariffs; this was never deemed to be unconstitutional. Furthermore, he references a moment in 1975 where President Ford invoked the authority to adjust imports to formulate similarly imposed monetary exactions. Thomas continues to claim how the court has recognized that the presidential power of regulating foreign commerce includes the power to impose tariffs. Thus, when looking at precedent, Thomas feels Trump's interpretation is consistent with that of executives past, making him question as to how Trump could be deemed unconstitutional.

While the majority of the court did not agree with Clarence Thomas, it is interesting to see how diverse members of the court visualize the same issue. It is particularly integral to read both majority opinions and dissents to form an individual opinion about the issue.

Trump's Response

Trump was quick to harshly critique the court and their decision, describing it as a disgrace to the nation. He continues to disparage the courts by attesting that they are

Trump's message | credits: X

unpatriotic, disloyal to the Constitution, and swayed by foreign nations. Trump went as far as to discredit the authority of Congress claiming, he has the right to impose tariffs, and he always has. Later, Trump posted on social media claiming he has signed a 10% global tariff, which would be reduction for a majority of foreign nations. He outlined this tariffs as part of the Trade Act of 1974. The new tariff begun on Tuesday, February 24th, at 12:01.

The Business' Response

Despite President Donald Trump's continuous decrees that tariffs will, or are, benefiting the American economy, stocks rallied on the news of the court's ruling. Hundreds of companies who had been forced to pay the unconstitutional tariffs are now seeking vengeance in the form of lawsuits; they want their money back. Justice Kavanaugh discussed this issue in his dissent, claiming the demand for the return of billions of dollars to businesses will have a large impact on the U.S. Treasury. How the government will handle the large quantity of lawsuits is still unknown.

The Future of Tariffs

It is incredibly clear, based on Trump's response to the court decision, that tariffs are bound to be present for the remainder of his presidency. However, it is certain they will not be imposed while invoking the IEEPA. In the future, it would not be surprising to witness Trump begin to rebuild his extensive collection of tariffs through various other laws.