Traders work on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange during morning trading as the Supreme Court struck down President Donald Trump's tariffs on February 20, 2026.
Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump Tariffs, But Damage From 'Unhinged Economic Sabotage' Remains
"The economic damage Trump has already done to business investment, manufacturing, and working families’ budgets will linger for years to come."
The US Supreme Court on Friday ruled that President Donald Trump exceeded his authority when he invoked an emergency law to impose sweeping global tariffs, sparking a disastrous trade war and burdening American consumers and businesses with higher costs.
The 6-3 decision, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, states that "nothing" in the text of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) "enables the president to unilaterally impose tariffs."
"And needless to say," Roberts wrote, "without statutory authority, the president’s tariffs cannot stand." Justices Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and Samuel Alito dissented in the case, Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump.
The ruling deals a massive blow to Trump's tariff regime, which he placed at the center of his economic policy agenda despite warnings that the sweeping import taxes would drive up costs for US consumers and businesses—which is precisely what happened.
An analysis released by congressional Democrats just after the Supreme Court handed down its ruling estimated that the average US family has paid more than $1,700 in tariff costs since the start of Trump's second White House term. While businesses may be eligible for tariff refunds in the wake of the high court's decision, it's far from clear that consumers who paid higher costs for groceries and other goods affected by the levies will have any such recourse.
The Supreme Court's decision does not directly address the issue of refunds for tariff costs, which tripled for midsize US companies last year.
"Any consumer looking for relief from tariff-driven price hikes did not find it at the Supreme Court today," said Alex Jacquez, chief of policy and advocacy at the Groundwork Collaborative. "The economic damage Trump has already done to business investment, manufacturing, and working families’ budgets will linger for years to come."
"Refunds for impacted businesses will take months or even years to process, and there is little reason to believe companies will pass those savings on to consumers," Jacquez added. "Trump must set aside his erratic tariff policy and instead pursue a trade agenda that protects workers, supports manufacturers, and doesn’t punish consumers.”
"Trump will try to do this again another way, because he is intent on continuing his unhinged economic sabotage."
Most of the tariffs Trump has imposed during his second term will be impacted by the Supreme Court's decision. NBC News noted that the decision "upends his tariffs in two categories. One is country-by-country or 'reciprocal' tariffs, which range from 34% for China to a 10% baseline for the rest of the world."
"The other is a 25% tariff Trump imposed on some goods from Canada, China, and Mexico for what the administration said was their failure to curb the flow of fentanyl," the outlet added.
On top of driving up costs for American consumers and businesses, Trump's tariffs failed to make a dent in the US trade deficit and did not stop the loss of manufacturing jobs, which declined by an estimated 108,000 during the president's first year back in the White House.
Fearing a negative Supreme Court ruling, Trump administration officials have reportedly been exploring alternatives to the IEEPA, prompting concerns that the president could swiftly pursue similar tariffs under a different authority.
"This decision is unlikely to alter US tariff rates or policies much because there are other statutes that could provide broad authority for Trump to impose tariffs," said Lori Wallach, director of the Rethink Trade program at the American Economic Liberties Project.
"In the immediate term, Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 explicitly authorizes a president to impose tariffs up to 15% for up to 150 days on any and all countries related to 'large and serious' balance of payments issues, which relates to the huge chronic US trade deficit," Wallach observed. "Section 122 does not require investigations or impose other procedural limits."
US Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), the ranking member of the House Budget Committee, welcomed the Supreme Court's decision but warned that "Trump will try to do this again another way, because he is intent on continuing his unhinged economic sabotage."
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just four days to go in our Spring Campaign, we are not even halfway to our goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
The US Supreme Court on Friday ruled that President Donald Trump exceeded his authority when he invoked an emergency law to impose sweeping global tariffs, sparking a disastrous trade war and burdening American consumers and businesses with higher costs.
The 6-3 decision, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, states that "nothing" in the text of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) "enables the president to unilaterally impose tariffs."
"And needless to say," Roberts wrote, "without statutory authority, the president’s tariffs cannot stand." Justices Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and Samuel Alito dissented in the case, Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump.
The ruling deals a massive blow to Trump's tariff regime, which he placed at the center of his economic policy agenda despite warnings that the sweeping import taxes would drive up costs for US consumers and businesses—which is precisely what happened.
An analysis released by congressional Democrats just after the Supreme Court handed down its ruling estimated that the average US family has paid more than $1,700 in tariff costs since the start of Trump's second White House term. While businesses may be eligible for tariff refunds in the wake of the high court's decision, it's far from clear that consumers who paid higher costs for groceries and other goods affected by the levies will have any such recourse.
The Supreme Court's decision does not directly address the issue of refunds for tariff costs, which tripled for midsize US companies last year.
"Any consumer looking for relief from tariff-driven price hikes did not find it at the Supreme Court today," said Alex Jacquez, chief of policy and advocacy at the Groundwork Collaborative. "The economic damage Trump has already done to business investment, manufacturing, and working families’ budgets will linger for years to come."
"Refunds for impacted businesses will take months or even years to process, and there is little reason to believe companies will pass those savings on to consumers," Jacquez added. "Trump must set aside his erratic tariff policy and instead pursue a trade agenda that protects workers, supports manufacturers, and doesn’t punish consumers.”
"Trump will try to do this again another way, because he is intent on continuing his unhinged economic sabotage."
Most of the tariffs Trump has imposed during his second term will be impacted by the Supreme Court's decision. NBC News noted that the decision "upends his tariffs in two categories. One is country-by-country or 'reciprocal' tariffs, which range from 34% for China to a 10% baseline for the rest of the world."
"The other is a 25% tariff Trump imposed on some goods from Canada, China, and Mexico for what the administration said was their failure to curb the flow of fentanyl," the outlet added.
On top of driving up costs for American consumers and businesses, Trump's tariffs failed to make a dent in the US trade deficit and did not stop the loss of manufacturing jobs, which declined by an estimated 108,000 during the president's first year back in the White House.
Fearing a negative Supreme Court ruling, Trump administration officials have reportedly been exploring alternatives to the IEEPA, prompting concerns that the president could swiftly pursue similar tariffs under a different authority.
"This decision is unlikely to alter US tariff rates or policies much because there are other statutes that could provide broad authority for Trump to impose tariffs," said Lori Wallach, director of the Rethink Trade program at the American Economic Liberties Project.
"In the immediate term, Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 explicitly authorizes a president to impose tariffs up to 15% for up to 150 days on any and all countries related to 'large and serious' balance of payments issues, which relates to the huge chronic US trade deficit," Wallach observed. "Section 122 does not require investigations or impose other procedural limits."
US Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), the ranking member of the House Budget Committee, welcomed the Supreme Court's decision but warned that "Trump will try to do this again another way, because he is intent on continuing his unhinged economic sabotage."
- 'More Chaos': Trump Hammered for Plan to Double Down on Tariffs After Supreme Court Ruling | Common Dreams ›
- After Supreme Court Kills Tariffs, Trump Plots '15% Tax Out of YOUR Pockets to Feed HIS Deranged Ego' | Common Dreams ›
- Opinion | Supreme Court Decision Extends Far Beyond Trump's Tariffs | Common Dreams ›
- Opinion | President Trump: Give Back the Money and Stop Grabbing More | Common Dreams ›
- Ahead of State of the Union Address, Progressive Caucus Leader Tells Trump: ‘We Need Our Money Back’ | Common Dreams ›
- As Trump Imposes New Tariffs, State Lawmakers Demand Direct Refunds for Americans | Common Dreams ›
- Opinion | With Its Tariff Ruling, the Supreme Court Shows It's Possible to Take Trump's Toys Away | Common Dreams ›
- Federal Judge Orders Trump Admin to Refund Billions of Dollars to Businesses That Paid Illegal Tariffs | Common Dreams ›
The US Supreme Court on Friday ruled that President Donald Trump exceeded his authority when he invoked an emergency law to impose sweeping global tariffs, sparking a disastrous trade war and burdening American consumers and businesses with higher costs.
The 6-3 decision, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, states that "nothing" in the text of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) "enables the president to unilaterally impose tariffs."
"And needless to say," Roberts wrote, "without statutory authority, the president’s tariffs cannot stand." Justices Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and Samuel Alito dissented in the case, Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump.
The ruling deals a massive blow to Trump's tariff regime, which he placed at the center of his economic policy agenda despite warnings that the sweeping import taxes would drive up costs for US consumers and businesses—which is precisely what happened.
An analysis released by congressional Democrats just after the Supreme Court handed down its ruling estimated that the average US family has paid more than $1,700 in tariff costs since the start of Trump's second White House term. While businesses may be eligible for tariff refunds in the wake of the high court's decision, it's far from clear that consumers who paid higher costs for groceries and other goods affected by the levies will have any such recourse.
The Supreme Court's decision does not directly address the issue of refunds for tariff costs, which tripled for midsize US companies last year.
"Any consumer looking for relief from tariff-driven price hikes did not find it at the Supreme Court today," said Alex Jacquez, chief of policy and advocacy at the Groundwork Collaborative. "The economic damage Trump has already done to business investment, manufacturing, and working families’ budgets will linger for years to come."
"Refunds for impacted businesses will take months or even years to process, and there is little reason to believe companies will pass those savings on to consumers," Jacquez added. "Trump must set aside his erratic tariff policy and instead pursue a trade agenda that protects workers, supports manufacturers, and doesn’t punish consumers.”
"Trump will try to do this again another way, because he is intent on continuing his unhinged economic sabotage."
Most of the tariffs Trump has imposed during his second term will be impacted by the Supreme Court's decision. NBC News noted that the decision "upends his tariffs in two categories. One is country-by-country or 'reciprocal' tariffs, which range from 34% for China to a 10% baseline for the rest of the world."
"The other is a 25% tariff Trump imposed on some goods from Canada, China, and Mexico for what the administration said was their failure to curb the flow of fentanyl," the outlet added.
On top of driving up costs for American consumers and businesses, Trump's tariffs failed to make a dent in the US trade deficit and did not stop the loss of manufacturing jobs, which declined by an estimated 108,000 during the president's first year back in the White House.
Fearing a negative Supreme Court ruling, Trump administration officials have reportedly been exploring alternatives to the IEEPA, prompting concerns that the president could swiftly pursue similar tariffs under a different authority.
"This decision is unlikely to alter US tariff rates or policies much because there are other statutes that could provide broad authority for Trump to impose tariffs," said Lori Wallach, director of the Rethink Trade program at the American Economic Liberties Project.
"In the immediate term, Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 explicitly authorizes a president to impose tariffs up to 15% for up to 150 days on any and all countries related to 'large and serious' balance of payments issues, which relates to the huge chronic US trade deficit," Wallach observed. "Section 122 does not require investigations or impose other procedural limits."
US Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), the ranking member of the House Budget Committee, welcomed the Supreme Court's decision but warned that "Trump will try to do this again another way, because he is intent on continuing his unhinged economic sabotage."
- 'More Chaos': Trump Hammered for Plan to Double Down on Tariffs After Supreme Court Ruling | Common Dreams ›
- After Supreme Court Kills Tariffs, Trump Plots '15% Tax Out of YOUR Pockets to Feed HIS Deranged Ego' | Common Dreams ›
- Opinion | Supreme Court Decision Extends Far Beyond Trump's Tariffs | Common Dreams ›
- Opinion | President Trump: Give Back the Money and Stop Grabbing More | Common Dreams ›
- Ahead of State of the Union Address, Progressive Caucus Leader Tells Trump: ‘We Need Our Money Back’ | Common Dreams ›
- As Trump Imposes New Tariffs, State Lawmakers Demand Direct Refunds for Americans | Common Dreams ›
- Opinion | With Its Tariff Ruling, the Supreme Court Shows It's Possible to Take Trump's Toys Away | Common Dreams ›
- Federal Judge Orders Trump Admin to Refund Billions of Dollars to Businesses That Paid Illegal Tariffs | Common Dreams ›