Supreme Court Says Trump Can't Use Tariffs Without Congress Approval

The Supreme Court ruled Trump's tariffs unlawful, showing a split among conservative judges. This is a major check on presidential power.
By Newsroom | Law, Politics |

A recent Supreme Court decision concerning President Trump's use of tariffs has revealed a notable division among the court's conservative justices. This split occurred in a case that challenged the president's power to impose tariffs without explicit congressional approval, a move seen by many as a significant check on executive authority. The ruling has implications for Trump's agenda and raises questions about the solidarity of conservative judicial thought when faced with expansive presidential powers.

The core of the matter revolves around whether President Trump’s administration had the legal backing, specifically through the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), to implement broad tariffs. The Supreme Court's majority opinion concluded that the law does not grant the president such authority, thereby reaffirming Congress's role in trade policy. This outcome represents a significant legal setback for Trump, particularly as tariffs have been a cornerstone of his economic strategy.

Read More: Supreme Court Allows Trump Deportations Under Alien Enemies Act in April 2025

Divide Among Supreme Court’s Conservatives Could Test Trump’s Agenda - 1

Context of the Ruling

The Supreme Court's decision in Learning Resources v. Trump addressed the legality of tariffs imposed by the Trump administration. The ruling, which went against the president, determined that the IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs. This marks a critical juncture in the ongoing debate about the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches, especially concerning economic policy.

  • Key Event: The Supreme Court ruled that President Trump's tariffs were unlawful, finding that the IEEPA did not grant him the authority to impose them.

  • Constitutional Debate: The case highlighted the constitutional question of how far a US president can extend economic authority without congressional involvement.

  • Presidential Power: The decision served as a check on President Trump's broad use of executive authority, emphasizing that Congress, not the president, holds the power to impose tariffs.

  • Impact on Agenda: The ruling is viewed as a blow to President Trump's second-term agenda, particularly his economic policies.

Evidence of Judicial Division

The ruling and its aftermath clearly demonstrate a fracture within the conservative bloc of the Supreme Court. While the court has a six-to-three conservative majority, the tariff case saw three conservative justices dissenting from the majority's judgment. This divergence of opinion within the conservative ranks is a significant development.

Divide Among Supreme Court’s Conservatives Could Test Trump’s Agenda - 2

  • Majority Opinion: Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion, which was joined by both liberal and some conservative justices.

  • Conservative Dissent: Three conservative justices dissented from the majority's conclusion, indicating a disagreement on the interpretation of the law and the president's powers.

  • Appointee Split: Notably, two of the justices appointed by President Trump, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, joined the majority in striking down the tariffs. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, another Trump appointee, dissented.

  • President Trump's Reaction: Following the decision, President Trump expressed his displeasure, appearing to divide the conservative justices into distinct groups and criticizing those who ruled against him.

Examining the Conservative Justices' Stances

The recent ruling on tariffs has illuminated differing judicial philosophies among the conservative justices, particularly regarding presidential power and the role of Congress. This internal disagreement is noteworthy given the court's generally conservative composition.

Read More: CIA Documents Claims: Leftist Activism Affected 19 Files Since 2020

The Majority's Rationale

Several conservative justices aligned with the liberal justices to form the majority that ruled against the tariffs. Their reasoning emphasized the need for congressional authorization for such significant economic measures.

Divide Among Supreme Court’s Conservatives Could Test Trump’s Agenda - 3

  • Congressional Authority: Justices Gorsuch, Barrett, and Chief Justice Roberts were part of the majority that held tariffs require congressional action.

  • Judicial Philosophy: Justice Gorsuch, in a separate opinion, stressed the importance of major policies like tariffs going through Congress, aligning with a judicial philosophy that prioritizes constitutional structure.

  • Institutional Limits: The decision, particularly by Trump appointees Gorsuch and Barrett siding with the majority, suggests a prioritization of institutional limits over perceived political alignment.

The Dissenting View

A segment of the conservative justices dissented, arguing for a broader interpretation of presidential authority in imposing tariffs.

  • Preserving Executive Power: Justices Alito and Kavanaugh, along with an unnamed third conservative justice (implied to be Thomas in Article 8), voted to uphold the president's tariff authority.

  • Legal Justification: While some dissented, the specifics of their legal arguments for upholding the tariffs are detailed across multiple sources, with some joining only parts of opinions.

  • Loyalty vs. Law: President Trump, in his response, seemed to perceive the dissenters as acting with "strength, wisdom and love for their country" in contrast to those who ruled against him.

Implications for Trump's Agenda and Future Policy

The Supreme Court's ruling has significant ramifications for President Trump's approach to economic policy and potentially for future presidential actions. The division among conservative justices also signals a potential shift in how such matters will be adjudicated.

Divide Among Supreme Court’s Conservatives Could Test Trump’s Agenda - 4

  • Check on Executive Power: The decision serves as a clear check on the president's ability to unilaterally implement significant trade policies.

  • Reaffirmation of Congressional Role: It reinforces Congress's primary authority over taxation and trade.

  • Future Challenges: The ruling could embolden challenges to other executive actions that extend beyond congressionally delegated powers.

  • Internal Court Dynamics: The visible split among conservatives raises questions about the court's future cohesion on matters of executive power.

Expert Analysis

Legal scholars and court observers note the significance of the internal divisions within the Supreme Court's conservative wing.

"This ruling is a defining constitutional moment, reaffirming congressional authority over taxation and revealing that even a president’s own appointees may ultimately side with institutional limits over political loyalty." — As reported by The Times of India, reflecting commentary on the ruling's significance.

"The court's decision represents a rare check on this president's broad use of executive authority. Congress, not the president, has the power to impose tariffs, the justices ruled." — BBC News summarizing the core finding and its impact.

Conclusion and Next Steps

The Supreme Court's decision in the tariff case has unequivocally established that the president cannot unilaterally impose tariffs under the IEEPA, reaffirming Congress's authority in this domain. This ruling represents a substantial curtailment of presidential economic powers and has direct implications for President Trump's policy agenda. The evident division among the conservative justices, with two Trump appointees joining the majority opinion, highlights a commitment to institutional principles over perceived political loyalty among some members of the court.

Read More: Supreme Court Limits Trump's Tariff Powers on Emergency Tariffs in 2026

The immediate implication is a significant legal and political setback for President Trump, who has relied heavily on tariffs as a tool of economic policy. This outcome may also signal a new dynamic in how the Supreme Court approaches cases involving presidential power, particularly when those powers are asserted without explicit legislative backing. Future challenges to executive actions, especially those concerning economic and trade policy, may find a more receptive audience if they align with established congressional authority.

  • Key Finding: The IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs.

  • Judicial Alignment: A majority, including liberal justices and some conservatives (notably Trump appointees Gorsuch and Barrett), ruled against the president.

  • Conservative Division: Three conservative justices dissented, indicating differing views on executive authority.

  • Presidential Response: President Trump publicly criticized the justices who ruled against him.

  • Future Outlook: The ruling may set precedents for future challenges to executive authority in economic policy.

Sources Used

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Why did the Supreme Court rule against President Trump's tariffs on February 21, 2026?
The Supreme Court ruled that the law called IEEPA does not allow the President to put tariffs on goods without Congress agreeing first. This means President Trump's tariffs were not legal.
Q: Which Supreme Court justices disagreed on the ruling about President Trump's tariffs?
Most justices agreed that President Trump could not use tariffs without Congress. However, three conservative justices disagreed. Two of these were appointed by President Trump himself.
Q: How does the Supreme Court's decision on tariffs affect President Trump's plans?
This decision is a big problem for President Trump's plans because he used tariffs a lot for his economic ideas. It shows that Congress, not the President, has the main power to decide on tariffs.
Q: What does the Supreme Court ruling mean for the power balance between the President and Congress?
The ruling clearly says that the President cannot use emergency powers to put tariffs on goods without Congress's approval. This makes Congress stronger in trade and economic decisions.
Q: Did any of President Trump's own Supreme Court appointments rule against him on the tariffs?
Yes, two Supreme Court justices appointed by President Trump, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, joined the majority that ruled against his tariffs. Another Trump appointee, Brett Kavanaugh, was among those who disagreed.