In a decision that reverberates far beyond trade policy, the Supreme Court on Friday delivered a major ruling in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc., holding that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the president to impose tariffs. The 6-3 opinion, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, drew dissents from Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh, alongside several concurrences that underscore just how complex the dispute became.
The legal fight traces back to the opening days of President Trump’s return to office. Citing national emergencies tied to the influx of contraband drugs from Canada, China, and Mexico, as well as a soaring trade deficit, Trump invoked IEEPA to justify sweeping tariffs on a broad range of imports. The statute allows a president, upon declaring a national emergency, to investigate, regulate, block, or prohibit transactions involving foreign property interests.
But there was a problem. IEEPA does not mention tariffs.
That omission became the centerpiece of multiple legal challenges. Learning Resources, brought by two family-owned importers working directly with China, landed in federal district court in Washington, D.C. Meanwhile, V.O.S. Selections, filed by several small importing businesses and joined by 12 states, was heard by the Court of International Trade. Both courts ruled against the administration. The cases were consolidated and fast-tracked to the Supreme Court.
🚨 HOLY SMOKES. President Trump announces the Supreme Court has actually STRENGTHENED the president’s ability to enact tariffs, HUGE BACKFIRE
“SCOTUS made a president’s ability to regulate trade and impose tariffs MORE POWERFUL and MORE CRYSTAL CLEAR, rather than less.”… pic.twitter.com/Ne6fKczeRq
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) February 20, 2026
The justices were asked to decide two core issues: whether IEEPA authorizes tariff imposition and, if so, whether that authority represents an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power.
The Court stopped at the first question.
Chief Justice Roberts wrote that the president’s argument relied on two words in the statute — “regulate” and “importation” — separated by 16 others. Those words, he concluded, cannot support the sweeping claim that the president may impose tariffs “on imports from any country, of any product, at any rate, for any amount of time.” The statute simply does not stretch that far.
An additional wrinkle: the Court determined that challenges to tariff actions belong exclusively in the Court of International Trade. As a result, the Learning Resources case was sent back to be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, leaving V.O.S. Selections as the procedural vehicle for the ultimate holding.
So what happens now?
The ruling does not strip presidents of tariff authority across the board. Other statutes explicitly authorize duties under certain conditions. Nor does it gut emergency powers. Instead, the Court drew a firm line: if Congress wants to grant tariff authority under emergency statutes, it must do so clearly.
That shifts the spotlight back to Capitol Hill. Lawmakers can no longer rely on broad, ambiguous language to shield themselves from politically difficult trade decisions. If emergency tariff power is warranted, Congress must say so outright.
🚨 JUST IN: Legal expert Jonathan Turley confirms Trump has a MASSIVE TOOLBOX of additional tariff options, the 6-3 SCOTUS ruling is NOT the end of the road
“The admin has other tools…it can impose tariffs under other statutes.”
MAKE IT HAPPEN!pic.twitter.com/WwjQD62kO3
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) February 20, 2026
Justice Kavanaugh’s dissent flagged another looming issue. The Court declined to address how the government should handle the billions of dollars already collected under the disputed tariffs. At oral argument, even the justices acknowledged that unwinding those payments could become a logistical nightmare.
The decision marks a pivotal moment in the balance of trade power between Congress and the presidency — one that will shape economic policy, executive authority, and America’s global posture for years to come.
