+1
By Hannah Parry, Shane Croucher, Amanda Castro, and Joshua Rhett Miller
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
President Donald Trump has reacted to the Supreme Court's decision to strike down his sweeping tariffs - a decision that tears down a central pillar of his administration's policy agenda. "The Supreme Court's ruling on tariffs is deeply disappointing, and I'm ashamed of certain members of the court absolutely ashamed," Trump said. A majority of justices ruled that Trump had overreached in his presidential authority by unilaterally imposing tariffs under national emergency powers.
What To Know
- The Supreme Court ruled against Trump in a 6-3 decision likely to spark a fierce backlash from the president, who has used tariffs aggressively, calling them "beautiful". Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.
- Trump used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose his widespread tariffs, citing threats to U.S. national security, including the globalization of its critical supply chains and a public health crisis caused by the influx of illegal drugs, in particular fentanyl.
- But the Constitution grants Congress the power to levy tariffs, and Trump's use of emergency powers prompted a wave of lawsuits challenging him on the issue. Trump used tariffs as a tool to open closed global markets for the U.S., rebuild the domestic manufacturing base, and coerce its rivals, adversaries, and even allies.
- Lower courts ruled in 2025 that the tariffs—some as high as 125 percent and applied broadly after the administration declared a national emergency citing trade deficits and fentanyl flows—exceeded IEEPA’s scope, and the Supreme Court fast-tracked appeals with arguments heard on November 5, 2025. Trump also lost a recent House vote.
- The SCOTUS ruling concludes: "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."
- Trump had earlier warned of "chaos" if the Supreme Court ruled against him, writing on Truth Social in January: "Remember, when America shines brightly, the World shines brightly. In other words, if the Supreme Court rules against the United States of America on this National Security bonanza, WE’RE SCREWED!"
Newsweek's live blog is closed.
...
Feb 20, 2026 at 07:08 PM EST
Gov. Pritzker sends Trump an invoice for $8.6 billion for tariffs
Illinois Governor JB Pritzker has sent President Donald Trump an invoice of $8.6 billion in the wake of the Supreme Court decision to overturn his tariffs.
"Your tariff taxes wreaked havoc on farmers, enraged our allies, and sent grocery prices through the roof,' Pritzker said in an accompanying letter to Trump.
"This morning your hand-picked Supreme Court Justice notified you that they are also unconstitutional. On behalf of the people of Illinois I demand a refund of $1,700 for every family."
Feb 20, 2026 at 07:06 PM EST
Trump says some trade deals may fall after Supreme Court tariff ruling
President Donald Trump said Friday that parts of his trade agenda could be reshaped in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision striking down his emergency‑powers tariffs, acknowledging that while many of his agreements with major partners will remain intact, “some of them won’t.”
The ruling invalidated the legal foundation he used to impose sweeping global tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. That same authority underpinned several of the administration’s trade arrangements with countries including China and members of the European Union, where partners accepted lower tariff rates in exchange for commitments to buy more U.S. goods and increase investment.
Trump suggested that any agreements weakened by the ruling would be replaced with new duties imposed under alternative statutes, signaling that his broader protectionist strategy will continue despite the Court’s limits. “They’ll be replaced with the other tariffs,” he said, without detailing which deals might be affected.
The decision leaves open significant questions about how the administration will maintain leverage in ongoing trade relationships — and whether partners will seek to renegotiate terms now that the emergency‑powers framework has been struck down.
Feb 20, 2026 at 06:55 PM EST
Sen. Klobuchar warns Trump’s attacks on Supreme Court Justices are ‘dangerous and wrong’
President Donald Trump attacked the Supreme Court Justices who had voted to strike down his tariffs on Friday, calling them “unpatriotic” and “influenced by foreign powers.
Democrat Senator Amy Klobuchar said that Trump's attacks on those justices, "simply for upholding the Constitution and the law in the tariffs decision is dangerous and wrong.
"These reckless attacks on an independent judiciary undermine the rule of law," she said on X.
Feb 20, 2026 at 06:49 PM EST
Trump shrugs off attendance of justices after tariff defeat
President Donald Trump dismissed concerns on Friday about whether the Supreme Court justices who ruled against his emergency‑powers tariffs would attend next week’s State of the Union address, saying he was indifferent to their presence after the landmark decision.
Asked directly whether all nine justices were still invited, Trump drew a sharp distinction between the three dissenters — whom he has repeatedly praised since the ruling — and the majority. He said the justices who sided with him were “happily invited,” while the others were “barely invited,” adding that he “couldn’t care less” if they chose to attend.
The comments came just hours after the Court struck down his sweeping global tariff program, a ruling that undercut one of the administration’s most aggressive uses of presidential power. Trump has spent the day publicly criticizing the majority and vowing to pursue new trade measures under different statutes.
His State of the Union address, scheduled for next week, is expected to outline his legislative and economic agenda following the Court’s decision — whether or not the full bench is in the room.
Feb 20, 2026 at 06:38 PM EST
WATCH: Bessent says Supreme Court didn’t rule against tariffs
Feb 20, 2026 at 06:35 PM EST
Trump says new 10% Global Tariff will replace much of lost revenue after court ruling
President Donald Trump said Friday that the United States will make up much of the revenue lost after the Supreme Court struck down his emergency‑powers tariff program, announcing plans to impose a new 10% global tariff under a different trade law.
The administration intends to shift from the International Emergency Economic Powers Act — the statute invalidated by the Court — to Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act. That provision allows the president to levy tariffs of up to 15% for a maximum of 150 days without congressional approval, giving the White House a temporary but immediate tool to reassert trade pressure.
Trump argued the new tariff would generate “more money” than the now‑defunct emergency duties. Early estimates suggest the revenue gap will be significant. Erica York of the Tax Foundation calculated that a 10% global tariff would replace roughly 56% of the revenue previously collected under IEEPA, leaving a substantial shortfall unless additional measures are introduced.
Feb 20, 2026 at 06:26 PM EST
What are IEEPA tariffs?
IEEPA tariffs are import taxes imposed by a U.S. president under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
The IEEPA allows a president, after declaring a national emergency, to regulate or block certain economic transactions with foreign countries when there is an “unusual and extraordinary threat” coming from abroad that affects national security, foreign policy, or the economy.
Trump is the first president ever to use IEEPA to impose tariffs.
By using emergency declarations tied to drug trafficking, illegal immigration and trade deficits, the administration imposed tariffs on China, Canada, and Mexico as well as a broad “reciprocal” tariff on nearly all U.S. trading partners.
However, the Supreme Court ruled against Trump using the law to authorize his wide sweeping tariffs, and legal repercussions are still to come.
Feb 20, 2026 at 06:21 PM EST
Trump blasts Supreme Court after justices strike down emergency tariffs
President Donald Trump sharply criticized the Supreme Court on Friday after it ruled that his sweeping emergency‑powers tariffs were unlawful, calling the decision “deeply disappointing” and accusing several justices — including some he appointed — of lacking the courage to support his trade agenda.
Trump said he was “ashamed” of members of the Court who joined the 6–3 majority, describing them as a “disgrace to our nation.” He reserved praise for the dissenting justices, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh, commending their “strength and wisdom” and urging supporters to read their opinions.
The ruling invalidated Trump’s use of emergency authority to impose broad global tariffs, but the president signaled he would move quickly to reassert trade pressure through other channels. He announced plans to enact a new 10% global tariff under Section 122, a trade law that allows temporary duties for up to 150 days. Asked whether he intended to extend the measure indefinitely, Trump said only that the administration had “a right to do pretty much what we want to do.”
He also pointed to additional statutes — including the 1974 Trade Act and the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 — as alternative pathways for imposing new tariffs, suggesting the administration would explore multiple options to replace the now‑invalidated regime.
Trump acknowledged that the ruling is likely to trigger a prolonged legal battle over whether the government must refund billions of dollars in duties already collected. Companies across industries have signaled they plan to pursue repayment, setting up what could become one of the largest refund disputes in U.S. trade history.
Feb 20, 2026 at 06:15 PM EST
What Supreme Court ruling means for Trump’s tariff refund checks
A new Supreme Court ruling has struck down Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs, and now political leaders, including California Governor Gavin Newsom is calling on the president to issue tariff refund checks.
Trump previously said that the U.S. was bringing in “trillions of dollars” and that a “dividend of at least $2,000 a person (not including high income people!) will be paid to everyone.”
However, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget previously predicted that such payments would cost $600 billion per year, compared with the roughly $300 billion that Trump’s tariffs are expected to raise each year.
On Wednesday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said she did not have an update on the timeline for the promised tariff rebate checks but added that it’s something that the president and his economic team “continue to very seriously discuss.”
During a news briefing on Friday, Trump expressed his frustration that the Supreme Court didn't rule on what to do with the billions the U.S. has raised as a result of his tariffs.
"They take months and months to write an opinion and they don't even discuss that point," Trump said. "We've taken in hundreds of billions of dollars, not millions, hundreds of billions of dollars. And so I said, well, what happens to all the money that we took in? It wasn't discussed? Wouldn't you think they would have put one sentence in there saying that, keep the money or don't keep the money, right. I guess it has to get litigated for the next two years."
Alex Beene, a financial literacy instructor for the University of Tennessee at Martin, told Newsweek that "while refund checks to Americans who have [borne] the brunt of these tariffs would be a logical step to make, the issue of the legality of these tariffs may, in fact, be only the beginning. The administration could still seek to reinforce tariffs under the Smoot-Hawley Tax Act of 1930 and perhaps argue the act could be retroactively applied to the previously implemented tariffs.”
Beene said that if the Supreme Court ruling stands and the Trump administration likely looks to other laws for tariff authorization, it's unlikely consumers will see a refund on the tariffs they've already had to pay unless further legal action is taken.
But he added: “Given the rise in costs on certain items for Americans, it's possible we could start to see legal action taken in an attempt to gain some type of financial retribution for the past year.”
Feb 20, 2026 at 06:07 PM EST
Liberal justices join majority in striking down Trump’s tariff Authority
The Supreme Court’s liberal justices joined Chief Justice John Roberts and two conservatives on Friday to strike down President Donald Trump’s sweeping global tariffs, but they diverged slightly in their reasoning. The 6–3 ruling held that the Constitution gives Congress — not the president — the exclusive power to impose taxes and tariffs, and that the administration overreached by using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to justify broad trade measures.
Roberts, writing for the majority, underscored that the Framers intentionally placed the taxing power in legislative hands, calling it a safeguard against executive overreach. He rejected the administration’s argument that historical wartime practices supported unilateral tariff authority, saying the theory rested on an “attenuated chain” of assumptions.
The Court’s three liberal justices — Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson — agreed that IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs, but said the case could be resolved through standard statutory interpretation rather than invoking the major‑questions doctrine. Jackson went further, turning to legislative history to show that Congress never intended IEEPA to grant tariff‑setting power. She pointed to 1941 amendments to the Trading with the Enemy Act and later congressional reports that focused on controlling foreign‑owned property during emergencies, not regulating imports for economic policy.
Jackson wrote that the record made Congress’s intent clear and that the Court should “give effect to the will of the people” rather than speculate about what powers presidents should have in a crisis. The dissent, authored by Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh, rejected the use of legislative history and argued that the statute gave the president broader authority.
Trump, informed of the ruling during a private meeting with governors, denounced the decision as a “disgrace,” according to people familiar with the exchange. He also suggested he would seek ways to counter the Court’s limits on his emergency powers.
Feb 20, 2026 at 06:01 PM EST
MAGA responds to Supreme Court’s tariff decision
Donald Trump supporters, several Republicans and MAGA supporters have expressed their support for the president, and denounced the decision by the Supreme Court to overturn his tariffs.
Turning Point USA spokesperson Andrew Kolvet, on X: "Yes SCOTUS ruled against President Trump on tariffs. I believe it ruled incorrectly. If a president can sanction other countries, he should be able to tariff them as well to counter them when they cheat at trade. But the sky isn’t necessarily falling. President Trump has other mechanisms he can use to enact his tariff policies besides emergency declarations."
Representative Don Bacon, a Nebraska Republican, on X: "The Constitution’s checks and balances still work. Article One gives tariff authority to Congress. This was a common-sense and straightforward ruling by the Supreme Court. I feel vindicated as I’ve been saying this for the last 12 months. In the future, Congress should defend its own authorities and not rely on the Supreme Court. Besides the Constitutional concerns I had on the Administration’s broad-based tariffs, I also do not think tariffs are smart economic policy. Broad-based tariffs are bad economics."
Senator Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican, on X: "In defense of our Republic, the Supreme Court struck down using emergency powers to enact taxes. This ruling will also prevent a future President such as AOC from using emergency powers to enact socialism."
In a second post, he wrote: "The Supreme Court makes plain what should have been obvious: 'The power to impose tariffs is 'very clearly a branch of the power to tax.'”
House Speaker Mike Johnson, on X: "No one can deny that the President’s use of tariffs has brought in billions of dollars and created immense leverage for America’s trade strategy and for securing strong, reciprocal America-first trade agreements with countries that had been taking advantage of American workers for decades. Congress and the Administration will determine the best path forward in the coming weeks."
Senator Bill Cassidy, a Louisiana Republican, on X: "There must be tools to level the playing field. Striking down President Trump’s ability to use IEEPA tariffs demands an alternative. My Foreign Pollution Fee levels the playing field in a way that is predictable and benefits American workers and American businesses."
Senator Ron Johnson, a Wisconsin Republican, on X: "The tariff case cried out for a unanimous decision. However, both sides made reasonable arguments leading to a split decision. In the end, SCOTUS decided nothing and created a HUGE mess. But the underlying mess is created by sloppy congressional language in bills that are not adequately thought through—the half-assed and unprofessional process that I witness daily."
Senator Roger Marshall, a Kansas Republican, on X: "President Trump’s tariffs secured 10 trade deals, brought supply chains back to America, and strengthened our national security. This decision is disappointing — but it won’t stop him from using every tool available to fight for American workers, rebuild U.S. manufacturing, and put America First."
Senator John Curtis, a Utah Republican, on X: "Today’s ruling affirms, despite all the noise of the moment, that 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 and how the Administration may use alternative authorities to impose tariffs. Looking ahead, it is critical that we provide the clarity and predictability businesses need."
Senator Chuck Grassley, an Iowa Republican, on X: "I appreciate the work Pres Trump is doing 2restore fair, reciprocal trade agreements. I urge the admin 2keep negotiating while also working w Congress 2secure longer-term enforcement measures so we can provide expanded market opportunities &certainty for Iowa’s family farmers+biz."
Brigitte Gabriel, conservative founder of ACT for America, on X: "Terrible decision by the Supreme Court. A President should have the authority to protect his country with tariffs!"
Feb 20, 2026 at 05:53 PM EST
Supreme Court rejects Trump’s claim of unilateral tariff power
The Supreme Court on Friday delivered a major rebuke to President Donald Trump’s trade agenda, ruling 6–3 that the White House exceeded its authority when it used emergency powers to impose sweeping global tariffs. The decision, issued in the consolidated cases Learning Resources v. Trump and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not grant presidents the ability to levy tariffs on their own.
The Court emphasized that the Constitution assigns taxing and tariff authority to Congress, and that nothing in IEEPA’s text or history suggests lawmakers intended to transfer that power to the executive branch. The majority opinion dismantled the administration’s argument that nineteenth‑century wartime tariff practices evolved into a modern presidential power, calling the theory an “attenuated chain” of assumptions that could not justify unilateral action.
The ruling closely tracked arguments raised in an amicus brief from the Constitutional Accountability Center, which challenged the administration’s historical narrative and warned that accepting it would upend the separation of powers. Legal Fellow Simon Chin said the decision reaffirms a core constitutional safeguard: Congress, not the president, controls the nation’s taxing authority.
By rejecting the administration’s expansive view of emergency powers, the Court signaled that statutes designed to constrain executive action cannot be repurposed to bypass Congress. The decision now stands as one of the most significant limits the Court has placed on presidential trade authority in decades.
Feb 20, 2026 at 05:45 PM EST
JD Vance says today’s tariffs ruling was ‘lawlessness’ from the Supreme Court
Vice President JD Vance has attacked the Supreme Court for what he called "lawlessness" over its decision to strike down President Donald Trump's tariffs.
"Today, the Supreme Court decided that Congress, despite giving the president the ability to "regulate imports", didn't actually mean it," Vance wrote on X.
"This is lawlessness from the Court, plain and simple. And its only effect will be to make it harder for the president to protect American industries and supply chain resiliency. President Trump has a wide range of other tariff powers and he will use them to defend American workers and advance this administration’s trade priorities."
Feb 20, 2026 at 05:39 PM EST
Retail stocks waver as companies weigh impact of tariff ruling
Major retailers and consumer brands stand to gain from the Supreme Court’s decision striking down President Donald Trump’s emergency‑powers tariffs, but early market enthusiasm faded Friday as investors assessed how the administration might respond. Companies with heavy import exposure — including Target, Nike and Hasbro — were initially seen as some of the biggest potential winners, yet many of their stocks reversed early gains as uncertainty lingered.
Analysts said Nike could see meaningful relief after previously estimating $1.5 billion in tariff‑related costs. Shares jumped more than 4% immediately after the ruling before sliding into negative territory. Jewelry retailer Signet, which sources roughly half its products from India, also pared back early advances.
Target and Best Buy were flagged as likely beneficiaries because of their reliance on imported goods and limited ability to raise prices during the tariff period. Both stocks, however, gave up intraday gains as markets digested the ruling. Toymakers Hasbro, Mattel and Funko — all heavily dependent on Chinese manufacturing — were also expected to get a lift.
Large retailers such as Walmart and Costco could see modest benefits, though analysts noted their scale and diversified sourcing helped blunt the impact of the tariffs over the past year. Both stocks traded lower Friday, reflecting broader market caution and the expectation that the ruling had already been priced in.
Industry observers warned that the administration still has other legal avenues to impose narrower or sector‑specific duties, which could limit how much relief retailers ultimately see. Meanwhile, companies are bracing for a lengthy legal process over potential refunds, with billions in previously paid tariffs likely to be tied up in court.
Analysts say the ruling may ease some cost pressures, but the path forward remains uncertain as businesses wait to see whether the White House attempts to rebuild its tariff strategy under different statutes.
Feb 20, 2026 at 05:35 PM EST
WATCH: Schumer warns Trump tariff alternatives will hurt Americans
Feb 20, 2026 at 05:25 PM EST
Retailers welcome tariff ruling but brace for uncertainty ahead
Retailers across the country praised the Supreme Court’s decision striking down a major portion of President Donald Trump’s global tariff program, saying the ruling could restore predictability to supply chains and ease long‑standing cost pressures. The National Retail Federation called the decision a step toward “clear and consistent trade policy,” arguing that businesses can innovate more freely when import costs are stable.
The Court found that the administration exceeded its authority by using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose broad tariffs, sending the case back to a lower court for dismissal. But the ruling leaves unresolved questions about whether — and how — the government will return more than $130 billion in duties already collected. Retailers are urging a smooth refund process, saying the money would help companies reinvest in operations and lower financial strain.
Some businesses aren’t waiting. Costco sued the administration late last year seeking a full refund of the tariffs it paid, warning that it could lose those funds even if the Court ruled against the policy. The company has not yet commented on how the decision affects its case.
The retail sector was among the hardest hit by the tariffs, particularly in categories like clothing, footwear and home goods, where supply chains run heavily through China and Vietnam. Footwear companies were especially exposed, with nearly all shoes sold in the U.S. imported. Industry groups say the ruling could free up billions for investment and help ease cost pressures that have weighed on consumers.
Other business organizations echoed that sentiment. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce said the decision offers relief to small and midsize importers that have faced steep cost increases and supply‑chain disruptions. But with refund logistics unresolved and the administration still able to impose narrower tariffs under other laws, retailers are preparing for a trade landscape that remains far from settled.
Feb 20, 2026 at 05:11 PM EST
Software stocks rise after tariff ruling, but bigger risks still loom
The Supreme Court’s 6–3 decision striking down President Donald Trump’s global tariff program sparked a brief wave of optimism across markets on Friday, lifting software stocks as investors reacted to the ruling’s limits on presidential trade powers. The iShares Expanded Tech‑Software ETF (IGV) climbed about 2% after the decision, part of a broader relief rally.
But analysts warn that the bounce may be built on shaky assumptions. The ruling does little to address the deeper challenges facing the software sector, and several major threats continue to overshadow any short‑term market reaction.
The most pressing concern is the rapid rise of autonomous AI systems, which threatens the per‑seat licensing model that has long underpinned software‑as‑a‑service revenue. If AI agents can independently manage customer‑relationship tools or update project boards, companies may no longer need large teams of human users — a shift that could erode the pricing power of major platforms like Salesforce and Atlassian. A tariff rollback does nothing to blunt that structural risk.
Geopolitical tensions are also weighing on sentiment. Oil prices surged to new highs Friday amid escalating friction between the United States and Iran, raising operating costs for data‑center‑heavy tech firms and pushing investors toward safer assets. Historically, periods of heightened conflict have triggered rotations out of high‑valuation growth stocks, leaving software especially vulnerable.
Feb 20, 2026 at 04:58 PM EST
FLASHBACK: Macron calls US tariffs ‘fundamentally unacceptable’ at World Economic Forum
Feb 20, 2026 at 04:43 PM EST
Housing costs unlikely to ease as key tariffs remain in place
The Supreme Court’s decision to strike down a major portion of President Donald Trump’s tariff authority will not bring immediate relief to the U.S. housing market, where construction costs have already been pushed higher by import taxes. Many of the tariffs affecting core building materials — including lumber, steel and aluminum — remain untouched because they were imposed under separate trade laws tied to national security and anti‑dumping measures.
Those duties have added significant pressure to an industry already grappling with a nationwide housing shortage. The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) recently estimated that tariffs are adding an average of $10,900 to the cost of constructing a new home, a burden ultimately passed along to buyers.
NAHB chairman Bill Owens said the ruling underscores the need for the administration to rethink its approach. “With the nation facing a housing affordability crisis, NAHB urges the president to exempt building materials as part of his tariff strategy because they raise construction costs, impede supply chains and result in market and business uncertainty,” he said.
Feb 20, 2026 at 04:28 PM EST
Supreme Court signals limits on Trump’s expansive use of emergency powers
The Supreme Court’s ruling striking down President Donald Trump’s tariff authority under a 1970s emergency statute also delivered a broader warning about the administration’s sweeping reliance on national emergency declarations. Trump has invoked emergency powers at a pace unmatched by recent presidents, issuing eight declarations in his first 100 days alone — a strategy that has allowed him to act unilaterally across wide areas of policy.
In Friday’s decision, the justices cautioned that emergency authorities cannot serve as a shortcut around Congress. “Emergency powers tend to kindle emergencies,” the Court wrote, adding that the nation’s founders understood how easily crises could become a pretext for executive overreach. The majority summarized the administration’s position as one in which a president could unlock extraordinary powers simply by declaring an emergency, with little room for judicial review.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, underscored the concern in a concurring opinion, noting that the administration’s argument would permit presidents to impose tariffs “on virtually any imports for any emergency any President might perceive.”
The strong language signals potential trouble for other parts of Trump’s agenda that rely heavily on emergency declarations. With several challenges to those powers already moving through the courts, Friday’s ruling may foreshadow a more skeptical stance from the justices in future cases.
Feb 20, 2026 at 04:15 PM EST
Jonathan Turley says Trump administration has ‘other tools in its toolbox’
Attorney Jonathan Turley has said that the Trump administration will have other avenues to imposing the sweeping tariffs, after the Supreme Court ruled that the president had overreached by using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
"There's a lot of runway still for the administration," he said. "The administration has other tools in its toolbox. It CAN actually impose tariffs under other statutes!"
Turley added, in a post on X, that the Supreme Court justices had opposed the manner of which President Donald Trump introduced the tariffs, not the tariffs themselves.
"It is important to note that the majority here was holding the line on what they view (correctly) as a core check and balance of Congress in control of the power of the purse. The vagueness of this authority and the sweeping use by the Administration gave a majority of justices great pause in how it would impact the balance of the branches," he wrote.
Feb 20, 2026 at 03:54 PM EST
Key unknowns after Supreme Court strikes down Trump’s tariff authority
The Supreme Court’s decision to invalidate President Donald Trump’s use of emergency powers to impose sweeping global tariffs has answered one major legal question — but it leaves several others unresolved. While the ruling sharply limits the administration’s reliance on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), it does not prevent Trump from turning to other trade statutes that allow more targeted or temporary tariffs. Whether the White House will pursue those options remains uncertain.
Top officials have already signaled they intend to preserve the broader tariff framework through alternative authorities, though those tools come with stricter procedural requirements and narrower limits on how quickly and aggressively tariffs can be imposed.
One of the biggest unanswered questions is what will happen to the more than $130 billion in duties collected under IEEPA. The Court offered no guidance on refunds, leaving the issue to lower courts. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in dissent, noted that the ruling says “nothing” about whether or how the government should return the money — and warned that any refund process is likely to be “a mess.”
Dozens of lawsuits filed by states, small businesses and major importers also remain in limbo. Companies ranging from plumbing suppliers to apparel brands — and large retailers like Costco — have sought reimbursement for tariff costs they say were unlawfully imposed.
Business coalitions, including We Pay the Tariffs, argue that refunds must be automatic and swift. Without a clear repayment mechanism, they say, the Court’s decision offers little practical relief to the firms that absorbed the financial hit.
Another open question is whether the administration will move forward with a previously floated idea of sending Americans $2,000 rebate checks funded by tariff revenue. In light of the ruling, that proposal appears increasingly unlikely.
Feb 20, 2026 at 03:40 PM EST
Business coalition demands automatic refunds after Supreme Court tariff ruling
One of the country’s most outspoken anti‑tariff coalitions is urging the administration to swiftly return billions in duties after the Supreme Court struck down a major portion of President Donald Trump’s tariff authority. We Pay the Tariffs — a national group representing more than 800 businesses — launched a sign‑on letter Friday calling for “full, fast, and automatic” refunds for companies that paid the now‑invalidated duties.
Dan Anthony, the group’s director, called the ruling a “tremendous victory” for small businesses that have shouldered the financial burden of the tariffs. But he warned that the decision will mean little without a clear and efficient refund process. “The administration’s only responsible course of action now is to establish a fast, efficient and automatic refund process that returns tariff money to the businesses that paid it,” Anthony said.
Feb 20, 2026 at 03:27 PM EST
Why the Supreme Court’s tariff ruling won’t lower consumer prices
The Supreme Court’s decision to strip President Donald Trump of a major tariff tool has raised an immediate question for consumers: Will prices fall now that a large portion of the tariff program has been struck down? Economists say the answer is almost certainly no.
Stephanie Roth, chief economist at Wolfe Research, said the ruling is unlikely to affect retail prices because the administration still has other legal avenues to impose tariffs. The Court itself noted that several authorities — including those used to raise duties on steel, aluminum and other imports — remain fully intact.
Even if companies eventually receive refunds for unlawful tariffs, consumers should not expect to see any money returned. “Walmart is not going to give you a check for the 15% tariff on sneakers you bought from them four months ago,” Roth said.
The Tax Foundation estimates that Trump’s tariffs added roughly $1,000 in extra tax costs for the average household in 2025. With many duties still in place, the group projects a $400 tariff burden per household in 2026.
Erica York, the foundation’s vice president of federal tax policy, said many businesses absorbed tariff costs rather than passing them fully on to shoppers — meaning prices are unlikely to fall simply because the Court invalidated part of the program. “There won’t be a dramatic overnight change in prices,” she said.
Feb 20, 2026 at 03:13 PM EST
Trump’s tariff rationale faces new scrutiny after Supreme Court ruling
As the Supreme Court strikes down the administration’s use of emergency powers to impose sweeping global tariffs, renewed attention is turning to the motivations behind the policy — and the economic results it delivered.
When President Trump unveiled the tariffs last April, he argued that the United States had been “ripped off for more than 50 years,” pointing to the nation’s persistent trade deficit as evidence that American wealth was flowing overseas. He framed the tariffs as a tool to rebalance trade, revive domestic manufacturing and secure better access for U.S. goods abroad.
But the realities of a deeply interconnected global economy have complicated that narrative. Despite the tariffs, the U.S. trade deficit climbed to a record $1.2 trillion last year. Manufacturing employment has also slipped slightly since Trump took office, undercutting hopes of a broad industrial resurgence.
Feb 20, 2026 at 02:58 PM EST
Uncertainty looms over potential tariff refunds after Supreme Court ruling
The Supreme Court’s decision striking down the administration’s use of emergency powers to impose sweeping global tariffs has raised a new and complicated question: whether U.S. importers will be reimbursed for the billions they have already paid. While the ruling opens the door to refunds, trade experts warn the process could be lengthy, uneven and enormously costly for the federal government.
According to the latest customs data, more than $130 billion in duties were collected under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act — the very statute the Court found had been misapplied. Returning that money would represent one of the largest refund efforts in U.S. trade history.
Economists, however, are skeptical that every dollar will be repaid. Even Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in his dissent, acknowledged that unwinding the tariffs could become a bureaucratic “mess,” given the volume of transactions and the complexity of customs records.
Feb 20, 2026 at 02:45 PM EST
What Is Section 338? Trump’s Plan B for the Tariff Setback
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told Reuters in September that the administration was considering Section 338 as a Plan B if the Supreme Court ruled against Trump’s use of emergency powers tariffs.
Section 338 of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code is a tax rule that allows certain corporate acquisitions to be treated differently for tax purposes. Specifically, it lets a buyer treat a stock purchase as if it were an asset purchase.
In a typical stock deal, the buyer acquires shares of a company, and the target keeps the same tax basis in its assets. In an asset deal, however, the buyer purchases the company’s assets directly and can step up their tax basis to fair market value. That higher basis can translate into larger depreciation and amortization deductions.
Section 338 bridges that gap. When a corporation acquires at least 80% of a target company’s stock within a 12-month period, it may elect to treat the transaction as a deemed asset sale for tax purposes.
There are two primary types of elections. Under Section 338(g), the buyer makes the election and the target is treated as if it sold its assets and then liquidated, often triggering corporate-level tax. Under Section 338(h)(10), the buyer and seller make a joint election, typically used when the seller is an S corporation or part of a consolidated group, which can shift how the tax is recognized.
For companies and private equity firms structuring acquisitions, Section 338 can significantly affect the tax outcome of a deal—making it an important tool in modern M&A strategy.
Feb 20, 2026 at 02:28 PM EST
Economic pressures may shape what comes next
With inflation still weighing on households, the administration has quietly delayed or rolled back tariffs on everyday goods like coffee and furniture. But Trump has repeatedly defended tariffs as a negotiating tool and has shown little interest in scaling back his broader trade agenda.
Despite promises of a factory revival, U.S. manufacturing has shed more than 100,000 jobs over the past year. Many producers say tariffs have raised input costs and dampened demand, contributing to low morale across the sector.
As the administration weighs its next steps, businesses, consumers and global trading partners are bracing for another round of uncertainty in U.S. trade policy.
Feb 20, 2026 at 02:15 PM EST
Only half the tariff program was at issue
The ruling affects tariffs imposed under IEEPA, which make up about half of all duties collected each month. Other tariffs — including those issued under Sections 232 and 301 of the Trade Act — remain in place and were not part of the case.
During oral arguments, justices questioned how the government would return billions in improperly collected duties. Trade attorneys say the process will be labor‑intensive but feasible, thanks to digital customs records and the administration’s willingness to waive certain filing deadlines. Still, the timeline for refunds remains uncertain.
The White House has already signaled it will replace any invalidated tariffs with duties issued under other statutes. But those laws come with constraints: Section 122 caps tariffs at 15% for 150 days, while Sections 232 and 301 require formal investigations before action can be taken.
Feb 20, 2026 at 02:08 PM EST
Trump says he doesn’t need Congress to enact tariffs as he says he’ll sign order to impose new 10% tariff today
President Donald Trump told reporters that he doesn't need Congress to enact the tariffs, as he announced that he will sign an order today to "impose a 10% global tariff under Section 122."
Trump said the tariff would be "over and above our normal tariffs already being charged."
"We’re also initiating several sections, 301 and other investigations to protect our country from unfair trading practices of other countries and companies," he said.
Section 122 allows the president to impose a “temporary import surcharge” of up to 15% to address large and serious balance-of-payments deficits.
When asked about getting Congress to enact the tariffs, Trump said: "I would ask Congress, and probably get it."
Feb 20, 2026 at 02:02 PM EST
Tariffs have generated billions — mostly from U.S. companies
The federal government has been collecting roughly $30 billion in tariffs each month — quadruple pre‑2025 levels — though the duties still account for just over 5% of total federal revenue. Importers have sought to limit their exposure by shifting production to countries with lower tariff rates, contributing to a decline in the share of U.S. imports from China.
Research from economists Gita Gopinath and Brent Neiman indicates that nearly the entire cost of the tariffs has been borne by U.S. importers, not foreign suppliers. Some companies absorbed the hit through lower margins, while others passed higher prices on to consumers.
Feb 20, 2026 at 02:01 PM EST
Democrats welcome tariffs ruling as ‘victory’ for Americans, and a ‘crushing defeat’ for Trump
Democrat leaders, representatives and senators have welcomed the Supreme Court's decision to strike down President Donald Trump's tariffs on Friday.
Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer called the ruling "a victory for the wallets of every American consumer" in a post on X.
"Trump’s illegal tariff tax just collapsed—He tried to govern by decree and stuck families with the bill. Enough chaos. End the trade war."
Minority Leader of the U.S House of Representatives, Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, added that not only was it a "big victory for the American people," it was also "another crushing defeat for the wannabe King."
Sens. Amy Klobuchar, Kirsten Gillibrand and Maggie Hassan also weighed in on the tariffs ruling.
Klobuchar said that the decision "affirmed what I have been saying for a year: the Administration's reckless tariffs are illegal."
Hassan added that she was thankful the tariffs had been overturned but they "have been a disaster for American families," and today's ruling could not undo the damage they had caused.
Feb 20, 2026 at 02:01 PM EST
Trump again suggests ‘foreign interests’ influenced court’s ruling
President Donald Trump has claimed that "foreign interests" influenced the Supreme Court's decision on Friday.
"I think that foreign interests are represented by people that I believe have undue influence," he said,, without offering any evidence. "They have a lot of influence over the Supreme Court, whether it’s through fear or respect or friendships, I don’t know."
"But I know some of the people that were involved on the other side, and I don’t like them. I think they’re real slimeballs."
Feb 20, 2026 at 01:56 PM EST
Trump slams Supreme Court for failing to address if tariffs need to be refunded
President Donald Trump was asked, during the Friday press conference, whether he had to refund the billions of dollars seized by the tariffs.
Trump responded by denouncing the ruling, which failed to address whether or not the administration would have to refund the tariffs it had imposed so far.
"They take months and months to write an opinion and they don't even discuss that point," Trump responded. We've taken in hundreds of billions of dollars, not millions, hundreds of billions of dollars. And so I said, well, what happens to all the money that we took in? It wasn't discussed.
"Wouldn't you think they would have put one sentence in there saying that, keep the money or don't keep the money, right?
"I guess it has to get litigated for the next two years. So they write this terrible defective decision, totally defective."
Feb 20, 2026 at 01:50 PM EST
Roberts warns against expanding presidential power in tariff ruling
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the Supreme Court’s majority, delivered a pointed rebuke of the administration’s attempt to use emergency powers to impose sweeping tariffs. In the 6–3 decision, Roberts said allowing the president to proceed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act would upend decades of shared authority between Congress and the executive branch on trade.
Roberts argued that the administration’s interpretation of the law would “replace the longstanding executive‑legislative collaboration over trade policy with unchecked Presidential policymaking,” a shift the Court deemed incompatible with constitutional limits. He wrote that the president must identify “clear congressional authorization” before asserting the power to levy tariffs — a threshold the administration failed to meet.
Feb 20, 2026 at 01:46 PM EST
Trump slams Supreme Court Justices as ‘disgrace to our nation’
A furious Donald Trump railed against the Supreme Court Justices who had voted to strike down his sweeping tariffs on Friday.
"The Supreme Court's ruling on tariffs is deeply disappointing, and I'm ashamed of certain members of the court absolutely ashamed for not having the courage to do what's right for our country."
Trump added that "Democrats on the court... are a frankly disgrace to our nation, those justices, they're an automatic no. No matter how good a case you have, it's a no."
"They're just being fools and lapdogs for the rhinos and the radical left Democrats," he continued... They're very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution."
Feb 20, 2026 at 01:39 PM EST
Trump claims his tariffs have been used to end five wars
President Donald Trump claimed that his tariffs had been used "to end 5 of the 8 wars I've settled."
Trump has not ended any wars, but has instead claimed credit for several temporary ceasefires and ending disputes that never rose to being wars.
"Tariffs have been used to end 5 of the 8 wars I've settled. I've settled 8 wars, whether you like it or not. Big ones. Nuclear. Could've been nuclear. The prime minister of Pakistan said yesterday that President Trump could've saved 35 million lives," he said.
Feb 20, 2026 at 01:37 PM EST
WATCH: Trump says defending tariffs before the Supreme Court is a disgrace
Feb 20, 2026 at 01:30 PM EST
Donald Trump reacts to Supreme Court’s decision to strike down tariffs
President Donald Trump has reacted to the Supreme Court's decision to strike down his sweeping tariffs - a decision that tears down a central pillar of his administration's policy agenda. "The Supreme Court's ruling on tariffs is deeply disappointing, and I'm ashamed of certain members of the court absolutely ashamed," Trump said. A majority of justices ruled that Trump had overreached in his presidential authority by unilaterally imposing tariffs under national emergency powers.
Feb 20, 2026 at 01:23 PM EST
GOP divisions deepen as tariff backlash hits farm and manufacturing states
Republicans continue to show internal fractures over President Donald Trump’s tariff policies, as lawmakers from export‑dependent states face mounting pressure from constituents hurt by retaliatory trade measures. While many in the party have defended the administration’s approach, others — particularly from agricultural regions — have warned that the economic fallout is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.
Farm‑state Republicans have been among the most vocal, with local economies heavily reliant on overseas markets for crops and livestock. Retaliatory tariffs from trading partners have pushed down commodity prices, squeezed farm income and intensified financial strain in rural communities. In several instances, GOP lawmakers have even joined Democrats in symbolic efforts to roll back the tariffs.
The concerns extend beyond agriculture. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell has repeatedly criticized the impact on Kentucky industries, including bourbon producers and auto manufacturers. He argued last year that consumers were ultimately bearing the cost of higher prices, saying Kentuckians “are especially well equipped to sort the bluster from the truth” when it comes to the real effects of trade barriers.
Feb 20, 2026 at 01:08 PM EST
Schumer applauds Supreme Court decision striking down Trump tariffs
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer praised the Supreme Court’s 6–3 ruling that invalidated a significant portion of President Donald Trump’s tariff program, calling the decision a major win for consumers and the broader U.S. economy. In a statement, Schumer said the tariff system had raised prices, destabilized markets and placed financial strain on families, farmers and small businesses.
Schumer argued that the administration overstepped its authority by imposing sweeping tariffs without congressional approval, saying the Court’s decision confirms that “a president cannot ignore Congress and unilaterally slap tariffs on Americans.” He urged the White House to end the trade measures entirely and provide relief to those affected.
The ruling dealt a substantial blow to one of Trump’s signature economic policies. The administration had relied on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act — a law designed for national emergencies — to levy tariffs on dozens of countries. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, said the statute “does not authorize the President to impose tariffs,” noting that no previous administration had used the law in such a way.
Feb 20, 2026 at 01:07 PM EST
‘Issue an immediate refund to all Americans,’ Newsom demands
California Governor Gavin Newsom is demanding that President Donald Trump's administration issue refunds to all Americans and U.S. businesses affected by the tariffs.
"Issue an immediate refund to all Americans for your illegal tax. Now," Newsom said on X, after sharing a report on the Supreme Court's ruking.
Feb 20, 2026 at 12:53 PM EST
Supreme Court strikes down Trump tariff authority as markets react
The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday invalidated President Donald Trump’s tariff framework, ruling 6–3 that the administration exceeded its authority under federal law. In the majority opinion, the Court noted that no previous president had used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs of such “magnitude and scope,” concluding that the move stretched beyond the statute’s intended limits.
The decision immediately rippled through financial markets. Bitcoin briefly jumped about 2%, climbing above $68,000 before quickly retreating. Stocks showed a steadier response, with the Nasdaq rising 0.6% to a session high.
The ruling landed on the same day new economic data pointed to a mix of slowing growth and persistent inflation. The Commerce Department reported that the U.S. economy expanded at an annual rate of 1.4% in the final quarter of 2025, while core consumer spending prices rose 3% year‑over‑year — slightly hotter than expected. Full‑year growth reached 2.2%, the weakest since 2020.
Feb 20, 2026 at 12:39 PM EST
Pence praises Supreme Court ruling limiting presidential tariff powers
Former Vice President Mike Pence applauded the Supreme Court’s 6–3 decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, calling the ruling a win for constitutional separation of powers and a relief for American consumers and businesses. In a statement posted on social media, Pence said the Court reaffirmed that the authority to levy taxes and tariffs rests with Congress, not the president.
Pence argued that the decision underscores who ultimately bears the cost of tariffs, writing that “American families and American businesses pay American tariffs — not foreign countries.” He said the ruling should ease financial pressure on households and companies affected by recent trade measures.
Feb 20, 2026 at 12:26 PM EST
Parties split over Supreme Court’s decision limiting Trump’s tariff powers
Republicans and Democrats offered sharply contrasting reactions after the Supreme Court ruled that President Donald Trump lacked authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose a series of global tariffs. The 6–3 decision represents a rare instance in which the Court curtailed the president’s broad trade powers.
Several Republicans criticized the ruling, arguing it weakens the country’s ability to respond to unfair foreign trade practices. Rep. Buddy Carter of Georgia said the Court had “undercut the President’s ability to defend American workers,” calling the decision an example of judicial overreach. Sen. Bernie Moreno of Ohio echoed that sentiment, saying the ruling “handcuffs our fight against unfair trade.”
Democrats, meanwhile, welcomed the outcome. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer described the ruling as “a victory for the wallets of every American consumer,” while House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries called it “another crushing defeat for the wannabe King.”
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, concluded that IEEPA “does not authorize the President to impose tariffs,” a finding joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Barrett and Jackson. Justices Thomas, Kavanaugh and Alito dissented.
Feb 20, 2026 at 12:20 PM EST
Mike Johnson says Congress will ‘determine the best path forward’ on tariffs after ruling
Speaker Mike Johnson appeared to leave the door open to future tariffs on Friday, as he said that Congress and the Trump administration "will determine the best path forward in the coming weeks."
"No one can deny that the President’s use of tariffs has brought in billions of dollars and created immense leverage for America’s trade strategy and for securing strong, reciprocal America-first trade agreements with countries that had been taking advantage of American workers for decades," he added in a post on X.
Feb 20, 2026 at 12:12 PM EST
Major U.S. companies seek refunds after Supreme Court tariff ruling
Several major American companies are moving quickly to recover money paid under tariffs the Supreme Court has now ruled unlawful. Even before the decision, importers had begun filing lawsuits to reclaim millions in duties imposed under the administration’s global trade measures.
Costco, one of the country’s largest retailers, became a high‑profile challenger in November, arguing that the emergency‑powers tariffs had harmed its business and that it risked never seeing refunds without court intervention. Two lower courts had already found that the administration exceeded its authority, prompting the company to act ahead of the Supreme Court’s review.
Other firms pursuing refunds include Goodyear Tires, camera manufacturer GoPro, and Chinese electric‑vehicle maker BYD. Their cases reflect the broad financial impact of the tariff program, which affected industries ranging from consumer electronics to automotive parts.
Feb 20, 2026 at 12:07 PM EST
Rand Paul takes swipe at Trump as he says Supreme Court ‘makes plain what should have been obvious’
Senator Rand Paul, a Republican, welcomed today's ruling, saying it made "plain what should have been obvious: ‘The power to impose tariffs is ‘very clearly a branch of the power to tax.'"
President Donald Trump had attempted to side-step Congress by using the IEEPA to implement his sweeping tariffs.
Feb 20, 2026 at 12:00 PM EST
Stocks soar after Supreme Court tariff ruling
Stocks soared on Friday after the Supreme Court ruled against tariffs imposed by Donald Trump, a decision that could ease cost pressures for companies and temper concerns about persistent inflation in the U.S. economy.
The S&P 500 rose 0.4%, while the Nasdaq Composite gained 0.7%. The Dow Jones Industrial Average edged up 45 points, or 0.1%, rebounding from a 200-point decline earlier in the day following weaker-than-expected economic data.
In its decision, the Supreme Court struck down most of the administration’s sweeping tariff policy enacted under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, ruling that the law does not authorize the president to impose tariffs. The decision did not clarify whether previously collected tariffs would need to be refunded.
Shares of Amazon climbed 2% after the ruling. The company sources a significant portion of its goods from China and has already faced pricing pressure linked to tariffs.
Feb 20, 2026 at 11:58 AM EST
Legal scholar says tariff ruling limits IEEPA but leaves other powers intact
A constitutional law expert says the Supreme Court’s recent decision striking down the administration’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) for broad tariff actions was largely in line with expectations — and far narrower than some headlines suggest. Ilya Shapiro, director of constitutional studies at the Manhattan Institute, said the ruling focused on one statute rather than the president’s overall authority to impose tariffs.
According to Shapiro, the majority held that IEEPA does not grant the power to raise revenue, noting that “none of IEEPA’s authorities includes the distinct and extraordinary power to raise revenue.” Several justices also emphasized that if Congress intends to delegate such sweeping authority, it must do so explicitly, reaffirming that “there is no exception to the major questions doctrine for emergency statutes.”
Shapiro noted that while the justices split in complex ways, a clear takeaway emerged: other federal laws still allow the president to impose tariffs under different procedures. He pointed to Justice Kavanaugh’s dissent, which argued that “numerous other federal statutes authorize the President to impose tariffs and might justify most (if not all)” of the measures at issue. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has already discussed alternative legal pathways publicly, suggesting the administration anticipated this outcome.
Although the ruling carries significant practical consequences — including uncertainty about how businesses might obtain refunds — Shapiro characterized it as a narrow legal correction. In his view, the Court effectively signaled that the administration used the wrong tool, not that its broader trade goals are off‑limits.
Feb 20, 2026 at 11:51 AM EST
Republican senator says today’s ruling shows America’s checks and balances ‘remain strong’
Senator John Curtis, Republican of Utah, said on Friday that today's ruling on tariffs by the Supreme Court proves that, “despite all the noise of the moment, that 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 and how the administration may use alternative authorities to impose tariffs,” Curtis added. “Looking ahead, it is critical that we provide the clarity and predictability businesses need.”
Feb 20, 2026 at 11:49 AM EST
Conservative thinktank says Supreme Court’s ruling was predictable
Ilya Shapiro, director of constitutional studies at conservative thinktank, the Manhattan Institute, said that today's Supreme Court ruling "was about what conventional wisdom would’ve predicted."
The main issue with the tariffs was that the statute used to pass them, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, "doesn’t give the president the authority he claims."
“None of IEEPA’s authorities includes the distinct and extraordinary power to raise revenue," he said, adding that if Congress wants to grant him those powers, then "it has to speak clearly."
Shapiro said that today's ruling may not be the end of tariffs because "numerous other federal statutes authorize the President to impose tariffs and might justify most (if not all) of the tariffs at issue in this case—albeit perhaps with a few additional procedural steps that IEEPA, as an emergency statute, does not require."
Feb 20, 2026 at 11:45 AM EST
Trade lawyers warn refund process after tariff ruling may be slow and complex
Trade experts say the Supreme Court’s decision striking down the administration’s tariff authority could open the door for businesses to seek refunds — but the path forward is far from straightforward. According to Steve Becker, who leads Pillsbury’s international trade practice, the Court of International Trade will now be responsible for determining how the ruling is implemented.
Becker told the BBC that the ideal outcome would be a clear, government‑led process allowing companies to recover money without filing individual lawsuits. While he believes businesses can be “fairly confident” they will eventually receive refunds, he cautioned that the timeline depends entirely on how federal agencies choose to proceed. With thousands of companies potentially eligible, he expects a “high volume and a lot of work” ahead.
At the same time, Becker noted that the administration is likely preparing alternative strategies to reimpose tariffs under different legal authorities. Those options could include short‑term duties capped at 15 percent for up to 150 days or targeted tariffs aimed at specific countries or industries.
Feb 20, 2026 at 11:42 AM EST
Court silent about how companies can get refunded on tariffs
While countless American companies will welcome today's ruling by the Supreme Court today, justices did not explain how businesses can get refunded for the tariffs they've already paid.
Feb 20, 2026 at 11:38 AM EST
Gov. Whitmer welcomes Supreme Court ruling limiting Trump’s tariff powers
Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer praised the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, calling the ruling a “decisive and welcome step forward” for families and businesses affected by the administration’s tariff policies. The Court’s 6–3 decision restricts the president’s ability to impose broad tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
Whitmer said the tariffs had contributed to higher prices on essential goods — including cars, groceries, energy and housing — and created uncertainty for manufacturers in a state heavily dependent on global trade. She pointed to last year’s record manufacturing trade deficit as evidence of the strain on production and jobs.
With the Court finding that a significant portion of the tariffs were unlawful, Whitmer expressed hope that the ruling would push Congress and the White House toward a more coordinated approach to trade. She emphasized the need for policies that stabilize costs, strengthen domestic industry and rebuild cooperation with international partners.
Michigan’s economy, anchored by automotive and advanced manufacturing sectors, has been particularly sensitive to tariff fluctuations. Whitmer said the decision offers an opportunity to reset trade strategy in a way that supports workers and reduces volatility for businesses.
Feb 20, 2026 at 11:37 AM EST
Mike Pence welcomes Supreme Court’s ruling on tariffs
Former Vice President Mike Pence has welcomed the Supreme Court's decision to strike down tariffs, as a "victory for the American People and a Win for the Separation of Powers enshrined in the Constitution of the United States."
"In Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, our Supreme Court has reaffirmed that the Constitution grants Congress - not the President - the power to tax. American families and American businesses pay American tariffs - not foreign countries. With this decision, American families and businesses can breathe a sigh of relief.
"I’m proud of the work our organization @AmericanFreedom has done on this case through our robust amicus brief program to advance economic freedom and defend the Constitution. With this historic decision, America can now return to the pursuit of Free Trade with Free Nations under the Constitution of the United States!"
Feb 20, 2026 at 11:35 AM EST
Sen. Murray welcomes Supreme Court ruling against Trump’s tariff Authority
Senator Patty Murray issued a sharply worded statement after the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that President Donald Trump could not use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs without congressional approval. The Washington Democrat, who has long criticized the economic fallout of the tariff policy, said the decision brings relief to businesses across her trade‑dependent state.
Murray argued that the tariff system destabilized key industries and raised consumer costs, calling it “erratic” and harmful to Washington’s export‑driven economy. She noted that farmers, small manufacturers and border communities had repeatedly warned her about the financial strain caused by retaliatory measures from trading partners.
While she welcomed the ruling, Murray said the damage from years of tariff uncertainty has already been felt. She criticized Republicans for blocking efforts to repeal the measures earlier and urged Congress to prevent any renewed attempts to impose unilateral tariffs.
Washington is among the most trade‑reliant states in the country, with roughly 40 percent of jobs tied to international commerce. In 2024, it exported nearly $58 billion in goods, including major agricultural products such as apples, cherries and hops — all sectors that faced risks from retaliatory tariffs.
Murray said she will continue pushing for policies that support small businesses and lower costs for families, framing the ruling as an important step toward restoring stability for Washington’s exporters.
Feb 20, 2026 at 11:29 AM EST
Newsom blasts Trump over tariffs in sharp rebuke
California Governor Gavin Newsom issued a forceful criticism of President Donald Trump’s tariff policies, calling them an “illegal cash grab” that raised consumer costs and strained long‑standing international partnerships.
In a pointed statement, Newsom argued that the tariffs harmed working families and said the federal government should return “every dollar unlawfully taken…with interest.”
Feb 20, 2026 at 11:24 AM EST
US markets react to Trump tariff ruling by Supreme Court
The Dow, S&P 500, and the Nasdaq all rose slightly after a Supreme Court ruling markets were largely anticipating, a positive but somewhat muted reaction that may reflect concerns that President Donald Trump will simply pivot to other powers to impose his tariffs instead.
The S&P 500 rose 0.6%. It had been flipping between small gains and losses earlier in the morning following discouraging reports showing slowing growth for the U.S. economy and faster inflation. The Dow Jones Industrial Average was up 124 points, or 0.3%, as of 11 a.m. Eastern time, and the Nasdaq composite was 1.1% higher.
Those with the most exposure to tariffs, such as consumer goods companies that import heavily, were among the strongest stock performers in the immediate aftermath of the court's decision.
Brian Jacobsen, chief economic strategist at Annex Wealth Management, said the decision "will give some short-lived relief as it just delays the inevitable of tariffs from a different authority."
There is also the potential for companies hit by tariffs to use the ruling to start demanding rebates from the government, a concern noted by Justice Brett Kavanaugh in his dissent.
"Markets are responding with a greater risk appetite for equities because we finally got something resolved," Todd Schoenberger, chief investment officer at CrossCheck Management in Washington DC, told Reuters. "The only question now becomes a rebate issue, so that could have a negative impact on the economy."
Treasury yields edged only a bit higher in the bond market. Stock indexes in Europe added some to their gains from earlier in the day, while the U.S. dollar's value edged down against the euro and other currencies.
Gold’s price slipped from nearly $5,075 per ounce just before the ruling toward $5,000 before climbing back. It had surged to records earlier this year in part on worries about the uncertainty Trump’s tariffs created for businesses and households worldwide.
Feb 20, 2026 at 11:13 AM EST
Trump challengers in Supreme Court tariff case react to major ruling
Some of those involved in the legal challenge to Trump's use of emergency powers to impose tariffs have reacted to their victory in the Supreme Court.
“The Supreme Court has made clear that grants of authority begin and end with Congress’s words. By enforcing that textual limit, the decision maintains the proper separation of powers," said Andrew Morris, senior litigation counsel of the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA).
Mark Chenoweth, President of the NCLA, said: “Today the Supreme Court agreed with NCLA by holding that no president can unilaterally raise taxes on Americans. The Court recognized that American importers pay tariffs. They are not taxes somehow imposed on foreign states.”
Ilya Somin, professor of law at George Mason University, who also worked on the legal challenge to Trump's tariffs, called the ruling "a major victory for the constitutional separation of powers, for free trade, and for the millions of American consumers and businesses enduring the higher taxes and higher prices as a result of these tariffs," in a statement to Newsweek.
Feb 20, 2026 at 11:05 AM EST
Brett Kavanaugh dissent raises economic fears over Supreme Court tariff ruling
Justice Brett Kavanaugh dissented after the Supreme Court struck down President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs and warned the majority's ruling could unleash an economic mess the Court did nothing to prepare for.
Kavanaugh, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, argued the Court wasn't just wrong on the law, but had opened the door to immediate disruption.
He contended that tariffs are a traditional tool presidents have long used to "regulate...importation," and that the majority's approach contravenes "text, history, and precedent."
"Refunds of billions of dollars would have significant consequences for the U. S. Treasury," Kavanaugh wrote in his dissent.
The Supreme Court, he noted, "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"—a process he said was likely to be a "mess," a word used during oral argument.
Read Jesus Mesa's full report for Newsweek.
Feb 20, 2026 at 11:02 AM EST
House Republican and Trump critic celebrates tariff ruling
U.S. Representative Don Bacon, a Nebraska Republican and critic of President Donald Trump, celebrated the "common-sense" ruling from the Supreme Court.
"The Constitution’s checks and balances still work. Article One gives tariff authority to Congress," Bacon wrote in a post on X.
"This was a common-sense and straightforward ruling by the Supreme Court. I feel vindicated as I’ve been saying this for the last 12 months. In the future, Congress should defend its own authorities and not rely on the Supreme Court.
"Besides the Constitutional concerns I had on the Administration’s broad-based tariffs, I also do not think tariffs are smart economic policy. Broad-based tariffs are bad economics."
Feb 20, 2026 at 10:59 AM EST
Trump MAGA movement defiant after Supreme Court ruling: “Stay the course”
Figures linked to President Trump's MAGA movement on social media had a message of defiance after the Supreme Court ruling, saying the White House had other levers it could pull to impose tariffs.
Feb 20, 2026 at 10:54 AM EST
Democrats celebrate Supreme Court tariff ruling: “Enough chaos”
Democrats were running a victory lap on social media over the Supreme Court ruling.
Feb 20, 2026 at 10:45 AM EST
Trump official touted backup tariff plans ahead of Supreme Court ruling
The Trump administration was laying out contingency plans in case the Supreme Court ruled against it on tariffs. And it is confident it has other executive powers to lean on instead.
“There are a lot of other legal authorities that can reproduce the deals that we’ve made with other countries, and can do so basically immediately," National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett said during an appearance on CNBC back in January.
But he did not elaborate on details.
"So our expectation is that we’re going to win, and if we don’t win, then we know that we’ve got other tools that we could use that get us to the same place," Hasset said.
Feb 20, 2026 at 10:41 AM EST
Supreme Court Issues Ruling on Tariffs: Key Takeaways
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not give the president authority to impose tariffs, sharply limiting former President Donald Trump’s use of emergency powers to reshape U.S. trade policy.
In a 6–3 decision, the Court said tariffs are a form of taxation that the Constitution assigns to Congress, and that any delegation of that power must be explicit.
The case centered on tariffs Trump imposed on imports from China, Mexico, and Canada after declaring national emergencies tied to drug trafficking and large trade deficits.
The administration argued that IEEPA’s power to “regulate importation” allowed the president to levy tariffs. The Court rejected that interpretation, finding that regulation and taxation are distinct powers and that IEEPA nowhere mentions tariffs or duties.
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said Congress has historically been clear and specific when authorizing presidents to impose tariffs, usually with limits on scope and duration.
Allowing IEEPA to support open‑ended tariffs, the Court warned, would amount to an extraordinary transfer of Congress’s core taxing power to the executive branch.
The ruling invalidates tariffs imposed under IEEPA and reinforces the Court’s recent insistence that major economic decisions require clear congressional authorization.
While presidents may still use other trade statutes, the decision curtails the use of emergency powers as a shortcut around Congress on tariffs.
Feb 20, 2026 at 10:38 AM EST
Donald Trump’s first reported reaction to the Supreme Court tariffs ruling
President Donald Trump is taking part in a closed-door "working breakfast" with governors at the White House right now.
According to CNN's Kaitlin Collins, Trump called the SCOTUS ruling on his tarrifs a "disgrace" and that he has a backup plan.
Feb 20, 2026 at 10:34 AM EST
Which Trump Tariffs Are Affected by Supreme Court Ruling?
All of Trump's tariffs introduced under his emergency powers are impacted by the Supreme Court's decision, including his much vaunted "reciprocal" tariffs.
In August, Trump’s signature policy of global tariffs against more than 90 countries came into effect. They ranged from 10-20% for most countries and up to 50-100% for others that Trump wanted to press.
Here are some of the highest rates Trump has slapped on countries the U.S. does trade with:
- India: 50%
- Brazil: 50%
- Switzerland: 39%
- Canada: 35%
- China: 30% (raised to over 100% on some goods at one point. New tariffs were pushed back after talks).
- South Africa: 30%
- Mexico: 25%
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines