Supreme Court Ruling Deals Blow to Trump's Tariff Agenda

White House faces setback as court rules tariffs under emergency powers were unlawful

Published on Feb. 21, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

The Supreme Court dealt a major blow to President Trump's economic agenda this week, ruling in a 6-3 decision that the administration's imposition of sweeping tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act was unlawful. In response, Trump imposed new tariffs under a different emergency provision, setting up a potential clash with Congress.

Why it matters

The Supreme Court's ruling undercuts a key part of Trump's 'America First' economic platform, which relied heavily on using tariffs to pressure international trading partners. The decision raises questions about the limits of presidential authority over trade policy and could embolden Congress to take a more assertive role.

The details

The Trump administration had argued the tariffs were necessary to address trade deficits and protect American jobs. However, the court ruled the president exceeded his authority under the emergency powers act. In a defiant move, Trump then imposed new 15% tariffs under a different law, Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act, which permits temporary tariffs to address 'large and serious' trade deficits.

  • On Friday, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 against Trump's tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
  • Also on Friday, Trump imposed new 15% tariffs under a different law, Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act.

The players

Donald Trump

The former president who imposed the tariffs that were ruled unlawful by the Supreme Court.

Jamieson Greer

The U.S. Trade Representative who is set to appear on several Sunday talk shows to discuss the tariff ruling.

Don Bacon

A Republican Congressman who commended the court's decision and said Trump's newly-imposed tariffs are sure to receive a congressional challenge.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“We must not let individuals continue to damage private property in San Francisco.”

— Robert Jenkins, San Francisco resident (San Francisco Chronicle)

What’s next

The judge in the case will decide on Tuesday whether or not to allow Walker Reed Quinn out on bail.

The takeaway

This case highlights growing concerns in the community about repeat offenders released on bail, raising questions about bail reform, public safety on SF streets, and if any special laws to govern autonomous vehicles in residential and commercial areas.