1. NBC 보도
Supreme Court strikes down most of Trump's tariffs in a major blow to the president
The decision does not affect all of Trump's tariffs but invalidates those implemented using an emergency law.
Volume Muted Icon
Supreme Court strikes down most of Trump's tariffs
02:57
Get more news
on
Share
Add NBC News to Google
Feb. 20, 2026, 10:03 AM EST / Updated Feb. 20, 2026, 11:12 PM EST
By Lawrence Hurley
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court delivered a major blow to President Donald Trump, ruling Friday that he exceeded his authority when imposing sweeping tariffs using a law reserved for a national emergency.
NBC News Icon
Subscribe to read this story ad-free
Get unlimited access to ad-free articles and exclusive content.
arrow
The justices, divided 6-3, held that Trump's aggressive approach to tariffs on products entering the United States from across the world was not permitted under a 1977 law called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
The ruling invalidates many, but not all, of Trump’s tariffs.
Follow along for live updates
Speaking at the White House, Trump harshly criticized the Supreme Court majority, describing the decision as a "disgrace to our" nation and the justices in the majority as "very unpatriotic and disloyal to the Constitution," while suggesting they were "swayed by foreign interests."
Trump's ability to impose tariffs using other laws is not affected by the ruling, and Trump said he plans to use those authorities to impose new duties on a global basis.
On Friday evening, Trump said on social media that he signed a global 10% tariff, which would be a reduction for nearly all foreign nations. The White House outlined the new temporary tariff as being under Trump's authority in section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, and will begin Tuesday at 12:01 a.m. ET.
Despite Trump's rhetoric about the tariffs benefiting the economy, stocks rallied on news of the ruling.
The ruling was authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, who was joined by three liberal justices and two fellow conservatives, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, in the majority.
Trump sharply criticizes Supreme Court justices he appointed after tariff ruling
02:30
"The president asserts the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration and scope," Roberts wrote. But the Trump administration "points to no statute" in which Congress has previously said that the language in IEEPA could apply to tariffs, he added.
As such, "we hold that IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs," Roberts wrote.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh and Samuel Alito dissented.
It is a rare setback for the administration at the Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, since Trump began his second term in January 2025.
Business owners who had to pay the tariffs and challenged them in court expressed relief at the ruling.
"These new tariffs were arbitrary, unpredictable, and bad business," Victor Schwartz, who runs New York-based wine and spirits importer VOS Selections, said in a statement.
"Thankfully, courts at every level recognized these duties for what they were: unconstitutional government overreach," he added.
Recommended
Trump administration
Deputy AG fires interim U.S. attorney succeeding Trump loyalist hours after appointment
politics
Live updates: Trump says he signed a 10% global tariff after Supreme Court decision
The decision does not affect all of Trump's tariffs, leaving in place ones he imposed on steel and aluminum using different laws, for example. But it 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.
Companies that had to pay the tariffs may be able to seek a refund from the Treasury Department. Hundreds have already sued.
The court did not directly address that issue, but Kavanaugh, in dissent, said the effect on the U.S. Treasury could be significant.
"The Court says nothing today about whether, and if so how, the Government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers," he wrote.
Kavanaugh also noted that the ruling "is not likely to greatly restrict Presidential tariff authority going forward," outside of the IEEPA context.
We Pay the Tariffs, a group of small businesses that oppose Trump's tariffs, immediately called for a "full, fast and automatic" refund process.
"Small businesses cannot afford to wait months or years while bureaucratic delays play out, nor can they afford expensive litigation just to recover money that was unlawfully collected from them in the first place," Dan Anthony, the group's executive director, said in a statement.
The Constitution says the power to set tariffs is assigned to Congress. But Trump used IEEPA, which does not specifically mention tariffs but allows the president to “regulate” imports and exports when he deems there to be an emergency due to an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to the nation.
Before Trump, no president had ever used that law to tariff imports. Lower courts ruled against the Trump administration in two related cases that were consolidated, with both sides asking the Supreme Court to issue a definitive ruling.
The high-stakes case put the spotlight on a court that was skeptical of President Joe Biden’s unilateral use of executive power, including his attempt to forgive billions of dollars in student loan debt. The court blocked that proposal, citing what has been called the “major questions doctrine,” which holds that Congress must explicitly authorize policies that have a major nationwide impact.
In Friday's ruling, Roberts cited the doctrine, although that part of his decision did not garner a majority. The three liberal justices, who previously dissented when the court ruled against Biden on those grounds, said the tariffs were barred for other reasons.
In addition to VOS, multiple businesses sued over the tariffs, including Plastic Services and Products, a pipe and fittings company, and two companies that sell educational toys. A coalition of states led by Oregon also sued.
As of the middle of December, IEEPA tariffs had raised about $130 billion, according to the latest data available from U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Trump has touted much higher numbers, up to $3 trillion, taking into account trade deals his administration has negotiated.
가디언
What will happen to Trump’s tariffs after supreme court verdict?
6-3 ruling against unilateral imposition of tariffs without congressional approval labelled a ‘disgrace’ by Trump
Trump illegally used executive power to impose global tariffs, supreme court rules
Lisa O’Carroll and Lauren Aratani
Fri 20 Feb 2026 20.05 GMT
Share
Prefer the Guardian on Google
The US supreme court has struck down Donald Trump’s flagship policy of imposing tariffs on foreign imports in his bid to revitalise American manufacturing. The US president has reportedly called the decision a “disgrace”. Here’s what it means, and what could happen next.
What did the court ruling say?
The court ruled that Trump exceeded his authority and should have got congressional approval for the tariffs, which he announced on what he dubbed “liberation day” last April. The tariffs, set at varying rates, covered dozens of countries from war-torn Syria and impoverished Lesotho to the UK, China, Canada, Mexico, Japan and EU countries.
The conservative-majority court ruled six to three in the judgment, saying the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) – the 1977 law designed to address national emergencies Trump had used to implement them – “does not authorise the president to impose tariffs”.
The decision affirms earlier findings by lower courts that tariffs Trump imposed under the IEEPA were illegal.
Will Trump now abandon his tariff war?
Nope. Trump – who faces a backdrop of slowing economic growth – has made it clear that he is not backing down from his trade war.
Hours after the ruling, Trump held a press conference where he vowed to keep tariffs in place using a different law than the IEEPA.
He announced a new 10% global tariff and said that his administration would conduct additional “investigations” into unfair trading practices using the Trade Act of 1974. The US president said he felt emboldened to continue his trade war because the court curbed his powers under the IEEPA only.
“We have other ways, numerous other ways,” Trump said. “While I am sure that they did not mean to do so, the supreme court’s decision today made a president’s ability to both regulate trade and impose tariffs more powerful and more crystal clear, rather than less.”
The US treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, said that the administration planned to use sections of the Trade Act of 1974 to enact the new tariffs, which “will result in virtually unchanged tariff revenue in 2026”, according to treasury estimates.
While the White House has these other alternative routes to pass tariffs, there are more restrictions in the form of capped amounts and durations of tariffs, along with procedural prerequisites such as investigations and hearings.
The administration will pass a 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows tariffs of up to 15% to address “fundamental international payments problems”. The law caps the tariff at 150 days while the president addresses alleged “large and serious” deficits in the country’s balance of payments.
Other sections of the Trade Act will require an investigation that determines whether the tariffs are necessary for national security or will remedy unfair trade practices.
Trump acknowledged that the White House would have to do more work but said, ultimately, that the tariffs would not stop.
“We’re using things that some people thought we should have used in the first place but it’s a little more complicated. The process takes a little more time, but the end result is going to get us more money,” he said.
When asked whether existing trade deals with foreign countries were affected by the ruling, Trump said: “Many of them stand. Some of them won’t, and they’ll be replaced with the other tariffs.”
Trump’s annual State of the Union address next week could further shed light on his next steps.
Companies that have invested significant time and money to adapt to America’s new import red tape will not adjust supply chains again until they know the long-term plan.
Richard Rumbelow, director of international business at Make UK, said: “As the situation continues to evolve, businesses now need clear, practical guidance on how the ruling will be implemented, alongside progress on resolving the remaining section 232 tariffs on UK steel and aluminium.”
Will the tariffs be paid back?
Tariff revenues for last year are estimated to have been between $240bn and $300bn, most of it owing to US manufacturers and consumers. The cost to the US government could be vast if it is forced to pay the money back to US importers.
McLaughlin says that “many studies show that US firms have paid 90% of that” with much of it passed on the consumer through price rises in shops.
Even if the US administration was forced to pay that back, it would “not be paid back soon”, she said. The supreme court justice Brett Kavanaugh said the refund process was likely to be a “mess”. Trump on Friday dismissed the idea of any refunds. “It’s not [being] discussed. We’ll end up being in court for the next five years.”
What have the UK and the EU said?
The UK’s Department for Business and Trade (DBT) said the ruling did not affect the preferential deal the UK negotiated on steel, automobiles (10% down from 27.5%) and pharma, which has zero tariffs compared with 15% in the EU.
“The UK enjoys the lowest reciprocal tariffs globally, and under any scenario we expect our privileged trading position with the US to continue. We will work with the administration to understand how the ruling will affect tariffs for the UK and the rest of the world,” said a spokesperson for the DBT.
The European Commission trade spokesperson, Olof Gill, said it was analysing the ruling “carefully”.
“Businesses on both sides of the Atlantic depend on stability and predictability in the trading relationship. We therefore continue to advocate for low tariffs and to work towards reducing them,” he added.
The German confederation of industries, BDI, said the ruling sent a “strong signal for the rules-based trade order”.
Can the EU-US trade deal be paused again by MEPs?
The EU parliament has yet to ratify a deal struck in Scotland last year and may well decide to pause it again on fresh legal grounds.
MEPs paused and then unpaused it amid the diplomatic row over tariff threats related to Trump’s bid to take over Greenland.
A formal vote of the International Partnership Committee is due on Tuesday, followed by a session of all MEPs, expected in early March.
