President Donald Trump and Supreme Court Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch stand with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., his wife Cheryl Hines, and other family members, with his commission, before he is sworn in as Health and Human Services Secretary in the Oval Office at the White House, in Washington. (AP/PTI)

In a landmark decision that reshaped the limits of presidential power in the United States, the Supreme Court on February 20, 2026 struck down Donald Trump’s sweeping global tariffs in a 6–3 ruling. The verdict was historic not merely because it invalidated one of Trump’s most aggressive economic policies, but because two justices he personally appointed joined the majority against him. The case quickly became a defining moment in the ongoing constitutional debate over how far a US president can go in wielding economic authority without Congress.

What the court ruled

At the heart of the case was whether Trump could use emergency powers under a national-security law to impose broad tariffs on imports. The Supreme Court ruled that the statute did not authorise such sweeping action. It held that tariffs are essentially a form of taxation, and under the Constitution, the power to impose taxes rests with Congress.Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts framed the case as a fundamental separation-of-powers question. He warned that allowing a president to impose tariffs without clear legislative approval would effectively give the executive branch unlimited authority to reshape the economy.

The Trump appointees who broke ranks

Two of Trump’s own nominees, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, joined the majority, delivering a striking institutional rebuke.Gorsuch, appointed in 2017, has long championed strict constitutional limits on executive power. In this case, he emphasised that major economic actions require explicit congressional authorisation and cannot rest on vague statutory language. His opinion reflected a consistent judicial philosophy that prioritises constitutional structure over political alignment.Barrett, Trump’s 2020 appointee, also sided with the majority. She agreed that Congress must clearly delegate authority before a president can take decisions with vast economic consequences. Her vote was particularly significant because she is widely regarded as one of the court’s most conservative members.

The conservative divide

The ruling exposed a deep split within the court’s conservative bloc. Chief Justice Roberts, though appointed by a Republican president, joined Gorsuch and Barrett in striking down the tariffs, creating a three-member conservative majority against Trump.On the other side, conservatives Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented. They argued that Congress had already delegated broad authority to presidents to regulate foreign commerce and that Trump’s tariffs fell within that tradition. Their dissent reflected a longstanding judicial approach that favours strong executive power, especially in matters of national security and foreign policy.All three liberal justices voted with the majority, making the final alignment a rare cross-ideological coalition driven more by constitutional interpretation than partisan ideology.

Political fallout

The ruling triggered a furious response from Trump, who publicly criticised the justices who sided against him, including his own nominees. Within hours, he signalled plans to pursue new tariffs under alternative legal authorities, underscoring that the political battle over trade powers is far from settled.

Why the ruling matters

Beyond trade policy, the decision is widely seen as one of the most consequential limits placed on presidential authority in decades. It reinforced the constitutional principle that economic taxation powers remain firmly with Congress, even during national emergencies.The judgment also highlighted a broader philosophical divide within the conservative legal movement over how far executive power should extend.

Bottom line

The Supreme Court’s tariff ruling was not simply a legal setback for Donald Trump. It was a defining constitutional moment that reaffirmed congressional authority over taxation and revealed that even a president’s own appointees may ultimately side with institutional limits over political loyalty.