Tariffs: Supreme Court Rules IEEPA Does Not Authorize Trump's Duties

The U.S. Supreme Court on February 20, 2026 issued a 6-3 decision holding that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant the President authority to impose broad-based tariffs. The ruling nullified the legal rationale for a substantial portion of the tariffs the administration imposed under emergency proclamations.

Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion, which was joined in full by Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett and joined in part by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. The Court emphasized that Congress retains the constitutional power “to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises” and that IEEPA’s text does not clearly delegate tariff-setting authority to the executive; the decision also applied the major questions doctrine to limit expansive executive action.

In response, the White House issued orders to revoke IEEPA-based tariffs and announced near-term measures under other statutory authorities, including steps under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 and new Section 301 investigations. The administration indicated it would seek to maintain protectionist trade measures through alternative legal channels while litigation over refunds and enforcement moves forward in the U.S. Court of International Trade. Importers are likely to pursue administrative remedies and litigation seeking reimbursement for duties already paid.

Market participants reacted to the decision and the administration’s immediate follow-ups by re-pricing exposure to trade policy risk. While the ruling removes the IEEPA basis for sweeping tariffs, it leaves open other tools and ongoing trade frictions; sectors sensitive to import costs and supply chains will remain under pressure until legal and policy clarity returns. The ruling also raises fiscal questions about potential refunds and their impact on federal revenue.

The specific quote attributed in the supplied headline — that Justice Barrett and Justice Gorsuch “sicken me” — could not be independently verified in major news reports or official statements; mainstream coverage documents strong presidential criticism of the ruling and immediate executive responses but does not substantiate that exact phrasing. Analysts will now watch how Congress, courts and the executive branch navigate the legal fallout, whether refund claims materialize at scale, and which statutory routes the administration uses next.