Trump’s Global Tariff Policy Ruled Illegal

• By Thetripurapost Web Desk, Washington
• Feb 20, 2026
• 541

The Supreme Court of the United States on Friday delivered a landmark 6–3 ruling striking down former President Donald Trump’s sweeping global tariffs, declaring that the authority to impose taxes and tariffs rests exclusively with Congress under the US Constitution.

The judgment invalidates the 18% reciprocal tariff imposed on India, along with other broad-based tariffs introduced under Trump’s economic strategy. The Court held that the President overstepped constitutional limits by unilaterally imposing large-scale tariffs without explicit congressional authorization.

A Major Blow to Trump’s Trade Policy

Trump had argued during hearings that an adverse ruling would severely damage the country. The verdict is widely viewed as a significant setback to his economic agenda.

In April 2025, invoking national security concerns, Trump imposed heavy tariffs on imports from multiple countries. These included a baseline 34% tariff on Chinese goods and 10% on imports from the rest of the world under a “reciprocal tariff” framework. The Court has now invalidated this entire category.

It also struck down a separate 25% tariff on selected goods from Canada, China, and Mexico. The administration had justified these duties by alleging insufficient action by those countries to curb fentanyl smuggling into the US.

However, tariffs on steel and aluminum remain in force, as they were imposed under separate statutory provisions not covered by this ruling.

Constitutional Limits and IEEPA

At the center of the dispute was the 1977 law known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The statute grants the President special powers during extraordinary international emergencies.

Trump relied on the IEEPA to justify the tariffs, arguing that global trade imbalances and narcotics trafficking constituted national emergencies. However, the Court noted that the law does not explicitly authorize the imposition of tariffs and emphasized that taxation powers belong to Congress.

The majority opinion sharply observed that “America is not at war with every country in the world,” signaling that emergency powers cannot be stretched to justify routine trade policy decisions.

Three justices dissented—Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Brett Kavanaugh. In his dissent, Kavanaugh wrote that while the prudence of the tariff policy could be debated, he believed it was legally permissible under existing statutes.

$200 Billion at Stake

According to a report by The New York Times, the administration collected more than $200 billion in tariff revenue since early last year. The ruling has created uncertainty over whether the government will be required to refund that money to affected companies.

Numerous businesses had already filed lawsuits seeking repayment, anticipating the Court’s decision. The question of refunds remains unresolved and could trigger further litigation.

Legal Challenge by States

The case was brought by 12 US states—Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Vermont—alongside several small businesses. Lower courts, including the US Court of International Trade and the Federal Circuit Court, had earlier ruled the tariffs unlawful, concluding that the IEEPA did not grant the President such expansive authority.

During oral arguments in November 2025, several justices expressed skepticism about the administration’s legal reasoning, particularly regarding the constitutional allocation of taxing powers.

The ruling now firmly reinforces the principle that tariff and taxation authority resides with Congress, not the executive branch—marking one of the most consequential judicial interventions in US trade policy in recent decades.