The Supreme Court of America on Friday (February 20, 2026) has given a big blow to President Donald Trump. The Supreme Court has declared the tariffs imposed by Trump on other countries as illegal. The court said in its decision that Trump had violated his jurisdiction while imposing tariffs on so many countries. The decision said that Trump had imposed tariffs under a law made for use in national emergencies.
This 6-3 decision of the court will have far-reaching effects on the American economy, consumers and the President’s trade policy. The Trump administration had said that in case of defeat in the Supreme Court, the government may have to withdraw trade agreements made with other countries and may also have to give huge refunds to importers.
Parliament, not the President, has the right to impose tariffs: US Supreme Court
Trump is the first president to claim to impose tariffs unilaterally without Congressional approval, citing an emergency law from the 1970s that does not mention the word ‘tariff’ anywhere. Writing the decision on behalf of the majority, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said that this law does not give the President the authority to impose tariffs.
The Chief Justice wrote, ‘The President claims extraordinary power to impose unilateral tariffs of unlimited quantity, duration and scope. “Given the breadth, history, and constitutional context of this claim, they will have to show express permission from Congress to use it.”
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Brett M. Kavanaugh disagreed with this decision.
Trump imposed tariffs on more than 100 countries
Early last year, he used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 to impose tariffs on goods imported from more than 100 countries. He had said that his objective is to reduce the trade deficit and promote manufacturing in America. They have since used these tariffs to raise revenue and put pressure on other countries in trade negotiations.
Who reached court against Trump’s tariffs?
A dozen states and a group of small businesses, including a company that makes educational toys and a wine importer, filed a lawsuit against these tariffs. He said that the President had illegally interfered with Congress’s right to impose tariffs under the Constitution. These businesses, which depend on imported goods, argued in court that the tariffs disrupted their operations, increased prices for consumers and forced them to cut staff.
In court filings and social media posts, the president and his advisers described the Supreme Court’s outcome as critical to their trade and foreign policy and made it clear they would view the defeat as a personal humiliation. The Solicitor General had warned the judges that if the emergency powers were no longer in place, the economy could suffer a Great Depression-like devastation, as well as disruptions in trade negotiations and diplomatic embarrassment.
What is the argument given by Trump?
Although the legal battle was continuing in the court, the President had started exploring alternatives to the 1977 law. Trump’s top trade negotiator Jameson Greer said last month that the administration would quickly replace any emergency tariffs invalidated by a court with other tariffs. The President has already imposed tariffs under other laws, including national security-related charges on certain goods and industries. Nevertheless, other laws that give the President more explicit power to impose tariffs are more limited and less flexible than emergency legislation.
Trump had earlier imposed tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico
Trump had initially imposed tariffs on goods imported into the US from China, Canada and Mexico. He said that these charges have been imposed as a punishment by these countries for failing to stop smuggling of fentanyl. In April he also raised tariffs on goods imported from almost all trading partners, saying these were necessary to reduce the trade deficit with the rest of the world.
Under this 1970s law, the President has the authority to take action in response to a national emergency to deal with ‘any unusual and extraordinary threat’ that threatens ‘the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States’. It also includes the power to ‘control’ the ‘import’ of foreign property. Former presidents have used this language to impose sanctions or blockades on other countries, but not to impose tariffs. However, the administration argues that this same terminology also gives Trump the authority to impose tariffs.
The lower court had given its verdict by 7-4.
Affected businesses protested, saying the word ‘control’ cannot mean imposing tariffs. Words like ‘tariff’, ‘tax’ are not included in this law. During oral hearings in November, several justices asked tough questions of Trump administration lawyers about whether Congress intentionally gave the president the power to impose sweeping tariffs, when the Constitution generally reserves that power to the legislature.
The case reached the Supreme Court after three lower courts declared the tariffs illegal. In August, the US Federal Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in a 7-4 decision that the emergency law does not permit these sweeping tariffs. But he declined to rule on whether the legislation would allow Trump to impose more limited tariffs. The majority of the appeals court said, ‘Whenever Congress wants to give the President the authority to impose tariffs, it does so explicitly.’