Supreme Court strikes down Trump’s sweeping tariffs, upending central plank of economic agenda

Saturday, 21 February 2026

The Supreme Court struck down US President Donald Trump's far-reaching global tariffs on Friday (Saturday NZT), handing him a significant loss on an issue crucial to his economic agenda.

The 6-3 decision centres on tariffs imposed under an emergency powers law, including the sweeping “reciprocal” tariffs he levied on nearly every other country. The high court ruled his use of an emergency powers law to set import duties without Congress was illegal.

Trump told a news conference he’s “absolutely ashamed” of justices who voted to strike down his tariffs, calling the decision “deeply disappointing.”

“Their decision is incorrect,” he said. “But it doesn’t matter because we have very powerful alternatives.”

Trump said on social media later on Friday that he signed had the executive order enabling him to bypass Congress.

“It is my Great Honor to have just signed, from the Oval Office, a Global 10% Tariff on all Countries, which will be effective almost immediately,” Trump said on Truth Social.

The US president added that he is exploring other tariffs through other avenues, such as Section 232, which would require an investigation through the Commerce Department.

He also took aim at the Supreme Court justices who “who voted against our very acceptable and proper method of TARIFFS”, saying they “should be ashamed of themselves”.

“Their decision was ridiculous but, now the adjustment process begins, and we will do everything possible to take in even more money than we were taking in before!”

Trump’s loss before the conservative-majority high court came despite a series of short-term Trump wins that have allowed him to move ahead with key aspects of his broad agency.

It's the first major piece of Trump's broad agenda to come squarely before the nation's highest court, which he helped shape with the appointments of three conservative jurists in his first term.

The majority found that it's 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 Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh 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 called the majority decision “a disgrace” when he was notified during his morning meeting with several governors, according to someone with direct knowledge of the US president’s reaction who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the private conversation.

“We have alternatives. Great alternatives,” Trump said at a later news conference, adding that the ruling opened the door to allow him to go in “probably a direction that I should have gone in the first time.”

Trump was clearly fuming at two of the justices he nominated in his first term who sided against his tariff policy.

“I think it’s an embarrassment to their families, if you want to know the truth. The two of them,” Trump said of Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett.

He said, “their decision was terrible.”

Still, he declined to say whether he regretted nominating them and said they are still “barely” invited to Tuesday’s State of the Union address.

But he added that “honestly I couldn’t care less if they come, OK?”

The US president wrapped up his briefing on a positive note, saying that with the ruling, “great certainty has been brought back to the economy of the United States and actually the economy of the world.”

He repeated one of his favourite lines, saying that the US is “the hottest country in the world,” and added: “We’re going to keep it that way.”

The court majority did not address whether companies 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 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 in the dissent.

The majority did not address whether companies 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 for refunds in court, and 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 decision centres on tariffs imposed under an emergency powers law, including the sweeping “reciprocal” tariffs he levied on nearly every other country.

The Republican president has been vocal about the case, calling it one of the most important in US 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.

The Supreme Court ruling comes despite a series of short-term wins on the court's emergency docket that have allowed Trump to push ahead with extraordinary flexes of executive power on issues ranging from high-profile firings to major federal funding cuts.

House Speaker Mike Johnson backed Trump’s use of tariffs in a post on social media after the Supreme Court ruling, saying they had “brought in billions of dollars and created immense leverage for America’s trade strategy.”

“Congress and the Administration will determine the best path forward in the coming weeks,” Johnson wrote on X.

The tariffs decision doesn't stop Trump from imposing duties under other laws. While those have more limitations on the speed and severity of Trump's actions, top administration officials have said they expect to keep the tariff framework in place under other authorities.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to levy tariffs. But the Trump administration argued that a 1977 law allowing the president to regulate importation during emergencies also allows him to set tariffs. Other presidents have used the law dozens of times, often to impose sanctions, but Trump was the first president to invoke it for import taxes.

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 educational toys 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 US$500 billion student loan forgiveness program.

The economic impact of Trump's tariffs has been estimated at some US$3 trillion over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The Treasury has collected more than US$133 billion from the import taxes the president has imposed under the emergency powers law, federal data from December shows. Many companies, including the big-box warehouse chain Costco, have already lined up in court to demand refunds.

Farmers beg Trump to pursue a different path

American Farm Bureau Federation President Zippy Duvall says farmers understand Trump’s efforts to use tariffs “to create a more level playing field for US goods, US workers and the US economy” but urged the administration to seek another way.

“Unfortunately, trade disruptions and declining prices for agricultural goods created additional hardships for farmers who came into 2025 already dealing with crippling inflation and declining farm prices,” Duvall said in a statement.

He added, “With supply costs already at or near record highs, we strongly encourage the president to avoid using any other available authorities to impose tariffs on agricultural inputs that would further increase costs.”