Tòa án Tối cao bác bỏ 6-3 các thuế quan IEEPA của Trump, phán quyết rằng chỉ Quốc hội mới có quyền đánh thuế hàng nhập khẩu

On Feb. 20, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not let the president impose tariffs, striking down the "Liberation Day" reciprocal tariffs and the fentanyl-trafficking tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China. Chief Justice John Roberts announced the judgment. Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Barrett, and Jackson joined the result; Justices Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Alito dissented.

IEEPA, passed in 1977, lets a president "regulate ... importation" during a declared national emergency. The word "tariff" appears nowhere in the statute. Congress wrote the law to freeze assets and block transactions, the tools later used against Iran and North Korea, not to set tax rates. Roberts wrote that taxing imports "has always been the core power of Congress" under Article I, Section 8.

Roberts' opinion turned on the words the government leaned on. "Based on two words separated by 16 others" in the statute, he wrote, the president claimed power to tax imports "from any country, of any product, at any rate, for any amount of time." "Those words cannot bear such weight," he concluded, applying the major questions doctrine that demands clear congressional authorization for decisions of vast economic significance.

The 6-3 result hid a 3-3-3 split on reasoning. Roberts, Gorsuch, and Barrett grounded the decision in the major questions doctrine, and Gorsuch, joined by Barrett, wrote a 46-page concurrence defending it. The three liberal justices agreed the tariffs were illegal on narrower statutory grounds. Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Alito dissented, with Kavanaugh's 63-page opinion the longest in the case.

The Court heard nearly three hours of argument on Nov. 5, 2025, almost double the usual time. Neal Katyal, who won the right to argue for the challengers on a coin toss, opened: "Tariffs are taxes. Our founders gave that taxing power to Congress alone." Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that "regulate ... importation" included the power to tariff.

The bench was openly skeptical. Barrett pressed Sauer for "any other place in the Code or any other time in history" where "regulate ... importation" had been read to grant tariff power. Gorsuch warned the theory was a one-way ratchet: once a president seized the power, only a veto-proof Congress could take it back. Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson were skeptical too; only Alito and Kavanaugh leaned toward the government.

By the ruling, U.S. Customs and Border Protection had collected about $133.5 billion in IEEPA tariffs, roughly $500 million a day. The Penn Wharton Budget Model estimated the government could owe up to $175 billion in refunds. The Court left the mechanics to lower courts, and Kavanaugh's dissent warned the government "may be required to refund billions" even though importers "already passed on costs to consumers."

The Tax Foundation projected the IEEPA tariffs would have raised about $1.4 trillion over a decade. The Yale Budget Lab estimated the average household paid $1,300 to $1,700 more in 2026 because of the tariffs. The ruling erased more than half of the projected tariff revenue, while leaving Section 232 duties worth about $635 billion over a decade in place.

The fight echoed 1971, when President Nixon imposed a 10% import surcharge under the Trading with the Enemy Act. A customs court upheld it in United States v. Yoshida (1975), but only because it was temporary and capped, and the court signaled it would not bless a permanent, universal tariff. Congress then narrowed emergency power, giving the president a capped balance-of-payments tool in the Trade Act of 1974 and passing IEEPA in 1977 to shrink those powers further.

Two courts had already ruled against the tariffs. A three-judge panel of the Court of International Trade struck them down on May 28, 2025, and the full Federal Circuit affirmed 7-4 on Aug. 29, 2025, holding that the power to "regulate" imports does not authorize the duties.

The Senate had also rebuked the policy. On Oct. 30, 2025, it passed a disapproval resolution 51-47, with Republicans Rand Paul, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, and Mitch McConnell joining Democrats. After the ruling, Trump called it "deeply disappointing" and said he was "ashamed" of Gorsuch and Barrett, while Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent pledged to shift to Section 232 and Section 301 authorities.