SCOTUS has ruled on the tariff issue (IEEPA) and it wasn’t favorable to the Trump Administration. Which, of course, has the media jumping up and down with glee. It’s a “rare rebuke” according to the Washington Post.

The Supreme Court on Friday struck down most of President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs, a ruling that deals a major blow to his signature economic policy and represents a stinging political setback. The justices ruled the president did not have the authority under a 1977 emergency economic powers law to impose a vast array of import levies on goods from nearly all of the nation’s trading partners. The decision is expected to reverberate widely, affecting global trade, consumers, companies, inflation and the pocketbooks of every American.

It was a 6-3 170-page ruling with concurrences in part from most justices, and dissents (which are well worth reading) from Justices Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Alito. 

As I’m reading through the media response as well as that from Jonathan Turley and the folks at SCOTUS blog, it does seem clear that the Court ruled only on the legality of the use of the statute. 

The law at the center of the case is the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, known as IEEPA, which authorizes the president to use the law “to deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States, if the president declares a national emergency with respect to such threat.” A separate provision of the law provides that when there is a national emergency, the president may “regulate … importation or exportation” of “property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest.”

It seems that the challengers filed suit because they claimed they were affected by the increase in tariffs. According to their lawsuits, IEEPA could not be used to impose tariffs. It seems the Court mostly agreed with that premise. 

In a splintered decision on Friday, the Supreme Court agreed with the challengers that IEEPA did not give Trump the power to impose the tariffs. “Based on two words separated by 16 others in … IEEPA—‘regulate’ and ‘importation’—the President asserts the independent power to impose tariffs on imports from any country, of any product, at any rate, for any amount of time,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote. “Those words,” he continued, “cannot bear such weight.” “IEEPA,” Roberts added, “contains no reference to tariffs or duties.” Moreover, “until now no President has read IEEPA to confer such power.”

In a part of the opinion joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Roberts said that Trump’s reliance on IEEPA to impose the tariffs violated the “major questions” doctrine – the idea that if Congress wants to delegate the power to make decisions of vast economic or political significance, it must do so clearly. “When Congress has delegated its tariff powers,” Roberts said, “it has done so in explicit terms, and subject to strict limits,” a test that Trump’s tariffs failed here.

The Democrats are also likely planning their happy dance parties on this ruling. But the devil as it were is in the details of the ruling and what ISN’T in the ruling. 

The Court has agreed that the cases should be heard in the Court of International Trade, which likely means the Learning Resources case is probably going to be dismissed over jurisdiction issues. 

However, the the majority ruling states that President Trump had no power under IEEPA to impose tariffs, and there is no language in IEEPA about the imposition of tariffs. The dissents from Thomas and Kavanaugh state otherwise.

The Democrats think this is a major win and are doing a happy dance. 

Congressional Democrats cheered the Supreme Court’s decision, calling it a long overdue win for Americans struggling with higher prices.

“A victory for the wallets of every American consumer. Trump’s illegal tariff tax just collapsed—He tried to govern by decree and stuck families with the bill,” Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-New York) said in a post on X. “Enough chaos. End the trade war.”
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-New York) called it “another crushing defeat for the wannabe King.”

Jonathan Turley has some immediate commentary on the ruling. 

…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…

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) February 20, 2026

As we are seeing via Twitchy and on X, others are gleefully calling for Trump to be impeached. Which is patently absurd, but that’s the only gambit they have. And no, President Trump imposing tariffs using IEEPA isn’t impeachable no matter how they’d like to make it so. 

Not only that, but that doesn’t mean ANY imposition of tariffs is DOA. 

If anyone believes that Bissent doesn't have a backup plan locked, loaded, and in the chamber….I have some swampland for sale.

— Folanator (@NattiFolan) February 20, 2026

Exactly. One of the other sticky issues that SCOTUS declined to address is the issue of refunding any of the $200 billion. They are dropping that in Congress’s lap, which I think is highly amusing given it was Congress who wrote the vague IEEPA in the first place! 

There will be tariffs. Even without IEEPA, the existing tariff toolbox is robust. https://t.co/PrMuGX4gV2 pic.twitter.com/ZWWMELJvdz

— Bruce Mehlman (@bpmehlman) February 20, 2026

It’s becoming clear that while this ruling is a disappointment for Trump, who called the ruling “a disgrace,”  the fact is there are other ways to peel this onion, even if it is more complicated.

Feature Photo Credit: Tariff with US Flag via iStock, cropped and modified