Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump’s Tariffs in 6-3 Decision

Well goodbye to that.  This was the broadest tool and obviously the broadest intertpretation.  It does not actually stop the policy, but it certainly makes application much more difficult.  The problem with that is that he must sooner than later go to congress and get a bill passed and that was never his plan.

He wanted to use blanket tartiffs to rewrite global trade rules willy nilly.  problem is that Canada is using this to create a global  coalition that counters tariff action to be bfollowed by global free trade agreements putting the USA on the ouside looking in.

By now it is obvious that this plan has totally failed and actually needs to be abandoned just as fast as possible.  Ending it will not end the damage, but it will allow some level of restoration.  Do we really need a public capitulation signed in ottawa with a look like the Missouri?  This so has to end.

MAJOR BREAKING: Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump’s Tariffs in 6-3 Decision

by Cristina Laila Feb. 20, 2026 9:08 am2143 Comments

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2026/02/breaking-supreme-court-strikes-down-trumps-tariffs/

The US Supreme Court on Friday struck down President Trump’s tariffs in a 6-3 decision.

The Supreme Court said President Trump does not have the authority to impose the tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

The high court’s decision only invalidates Trump’s tariffs under the IEEPA.

Chief Justices Roberts, Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch sided with the three liberal justices.

Conservative Justices Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Brett Kavanaugh sided with President Trump.

Roberts wrote the majority opinion.

“To begin, IEEPA authorizes the President to “investigate, block during the pendency of an investigation, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit . . . importation or exportation.” Absent from this lengthy list of powers is any mention of tariffs or duties. That omission is notable in light of the significant but specific powers Congress did go to the trouble of naming. It stands to reason that had Congress intended to convey the distinct and extraordinary power to impose tariffs, it would have done so expressly—as it consistently has in other tariff statutes,” Roberts wrote for the majority.

Fox News reported:

The Supreme Court on Friday blocked President Donald Trump’s use of an emergency law to unilaterally impose sweeping tariffs on most U.S. trading partners, delivering a blow to the president in a case centered on one of his signature economic policies — one he characterized as “life or death” for the U.S. economy.

In a 6-3 decision, the justices invalidated Trump’s tariffs.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in November in the case, which centered on Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to enact his “Liberation Day” tariffs on most countries, including a 10% global tariff and a set of higher, so-called “reciprocal” tariffs on certain nations.

In May, The Court of International Trade in New York said President Trump exceeded his authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA).

“The order halts Trump’s 30% tariffs on China, his 25% tariffs on some goods imported from Mexico and Canada, and the 10% universal tariffs on most goods coming into the United States. It does not, however, affect the 25% tariffs on autos, auto parts, steel or aluminum, which were subject to Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act – a different law than the one Trump cited for his broader trade actions,” CNN reported last year.

Last August, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected President Trump’s authority to impose sweeping tariffs in a 7-4 decision.