Trump’s Tariffs: What the US Supreme Court Just Changed
Trump’s Tariffs fall after a US Supreme Court ruling, redefining presidential trade powers and sending ripples across global markets and India.
On February 20, 2026, the US Supreme Court delivered a consequential decision on Trump’s tariffs, ruling 6–3 that most of the broad global tariffs imposed by former President Donald Trump were unlawful because he lacked the legal authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Court held that the administration had exceeded the statutory limits of IEEPA, which had historically been used for targeted sanctions rather than sweeping import duties. In doing so, the US Supreme Court found that Trump violated federal law by unilaterally imposing duties across a wide range of U.S. trading partners without clear congressional authorisation.
Support Independent Journalism. Public interest stories that affect ordinary citizens — especially those without power or voice — requires time, resources, and independence. Your support — even a modest contribution — allows us to uncover stories that would otherwise remain hidden. Support The Probe by contributing to projects that resonate with you (Click Here), or Become a Member of The Probe to stand with us (Click Here). |
The US Supreme Court made clear that IEEPA does not grant the President the authority to impose broad tariff duties on imports from virtually all trading partners, a power the Constitution reserves to Congress. In its opinion, the Court explained that tariff and tax authority is an express legislative function and that Congress, not the executive branch, must control such measures. This judgment reinforces the constitutional separation of powers in matters of taxation and trade policy.
Despite the weight of the US Supreme Court’s decision, President Trump responded with criticism rather than concession. He denounced the ruling as a “disgrace” during a White House breakfast, framing it as an affront to national interests and asserting that he has a “backup plan.”
Also Read: India–EU Trade May Boost Exports, but Pollution Could Surge Faster
Central Legal Question in the Case
At the heart of the US Supreme Court’s deliberation was a fundamental constitutional and statutory question: can the President use emergency powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping global tariffs, or does that authority belong exclusively to Congress? This question cut to the core of how trade policy is made in the United States. The government argued that the broad language of IEEPA empowered the President to respond quickly to economic threats, but challengers and, ultimately, the Court disagreed.
Supporters of Trump's tariffs argued that IEEPA provides broad authority to the President during a declared national emergency, allowing regulatory action in international commerce. They maintained that acute trade imbalances and perceived economic threats justified the use of emergency tariff powers. In their view, tariffs are a legitimate mechanism to regulate foreign commerce and, given IEEPA’s reference to regulating international economic transactions, could be interpreted to encompass duties on imports. They also urged judicial deference to the executive in matters involving national security and trade.
However, opponents countered that IEEPA does not explicitly authorise the imposition of tariffs. The statute allows the President to block transactions and freeze assets but contains no language about taxing imports or imposing duties. Under the Constitution’s Article I, only Congress has clear authority to levy taxes and tariffs, a power that cannot be delegated implicitly. Allowing such a broad interpretation of IEEPA, challengers argued, would effectively grant the executive unchecked power to reshape economic policy without legislative oversight—a result at odds with constitutional design.
Also Read: Could Andrew's Arrest Bring Down the British Monarchy?
The US Supreme Court focused its analysis on statutory interpretation and constitutional structure. Justices examined whether Congress had clearly authorised tariff powers in IEEPA and whether the Court could infer such authority where the statute was silent. The majority concluded that IEEPA did not clearly grant the President tariff-setting authority and, under principles of separation of powers, could not be read to do so.
What Options Trump Has Now
A ruling by the US Supreme Court represents the final word in the U.S. judiciary; there is no higher court to appeal to. However, the Trump administration is not without options. One narrow procedural path is to petition the Court for a rehearing, asking the justices to reconsider their decision. In practice, this is rarely successful, typically requiring evidence of a procedural or factual error in the original ruling. Given the clarity of the Court’s reasoning, this avenue offers limited prospects of success.
Even after this US Supreme Court ruling limiting tariff authority under IEEPA, other legal avenues remain. One possibility is for the President to rely on different statutory authorities that explicitly allow tariffs. Notably, Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 permits tariffs on national security grounds, and Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 authorises duties in response to unfair trade practices. Both statutes have been used in prior administrations to impose targeted tariffs and were not invalidated by the Court’s decision.
Another option is for the administration to seek explicit tariff authority from the United States Congress. If lawmakers were to draft and pass legislation that clearly grants broader tariff powers, this would address the constitutional concerns identified by the US Supreme Court. Such an approach would bring trade policy back into the legislative arena and could provide a more stable and predictable framework for future actions.
The ruling also leaves room for more narrowly tailored emergency actions. While sweeping global tariffs under IEEPA are no longer permissible, future measures might still be possible if they are focused, directly tied to a well-defined emergency, and supported by specific statutory language, reducing the judicial resistance encountered in this case.
What This Means for the World
The US Supreme Court’s decision does not mean that all of Trump's tariffs will automatically be withdrawn. Its scope is limited to tariffs enacted under the emergency powers of IEEPA. Other duties imposed under separate statutes, including Section 232 and Section 301 tariffs, remain unaffected and continue to apply until they are independently challenged or revoked. The ruling therefore reshapes only a portion of the complex framework governing U.S. trade policy.
Tariffs imposed under IEEPA had affected a broad swath of global trade, covering major partners such as Canada, China, Mexico, India, and Brazil, among others. These duties had contributed to supply chain disruptions, increased costs for importers and exporters, and added volatility to global markets. The Court’s decision is likely to ease some of these pressures by removing the legal basis for the most expansive Trump's tariffs, though the full economic impact will unfold over time.
In the immediate aftermath, countries previously subject to emergency-based tariffs are likely to benefit most. Major trading partners including China, Canada, Mexico, members of the European Union, and emerging economies like India could see tariff burdens lifted or refunded where they derived solely from IEEPA authority. Export-driven sectors supplying steel, manufactured goods, agricultural products, and components to the U.S. market may find improved access and pricing competitiveness, contingent on how and whether those tariffs are formally withdrawn.
What This Means for India
For India, the US Supreme Court’s ruling has nuanced implications. If Trump's tariffs affecting Indian exports were imposed under IEEPA, those duties now face the possibility of withdrawal or refund, which could enhance the price competitiveness of Indian goods in the U.S. market. In sectors such as steel, aluminium, pharmaceuticals, auto components, textiles, chemicals, and IT-linked hardware, the easing of tariff pressure would likely benefit exporters. However, the overall impact depends on the legal basis of each tariff measure.
The ruling also contributes to greater trade policy stability. By clarifying that future presidents cannot impose broad global tariffs under emergency powers without congressional authorisation, the decision reduces the risk of sudden trade shocks—an outcome that Indian businesses generally value when planning long-term investments and export strategies.
In the context of India–U.S. trade negotiations, the constraint on executive tariff authority may encourage more structured, predictable engagements. With unilateral tariff threats curtailed, negotiations are more likely to progress through formal diplomatic and legislative channels, potentially yielding more reliable outcomes for bilateral cooperation.
The US Supreme Court’s decision on Trump’s tariffs does not transform India–U.S. trade overnight, but it does signal a shift toward greater legal constraints on executive economic power and a reaffirmation of congressional primacy in tariff policy. For an export-oriented and rapidly growing economy like India, enhanced predictability in trade relations with the United States is a meaningful development, even as other trade laws continue to shape the broader landscape.
