Trump tariffs ruling updates: President slams Supreme Court setback

WASHINGTON − A furious President Donald Trump slammed the Supreme Court after a landmark decision striking down his power to impose sweeping tariffs.

"I'm ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed for not having the courage to do what's right for our country," Trump said.

The ruling dealt a major blow to Trump's economic agenda.

The court on Feb. 20 tossed the tariffs that are the centerpiece of his economic policy and a major foreign policy tool – but that have also raised costs for consumers and businesses. The 6-3 decision from the conservative court was its first major ruling against Trump's controversial expansive view of presidential power.

“The President asserts the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote. “In light of the breadth, history, and constitutional context of that asserted authority, he must identify clear congressional authorization to exercise it.”

Trump, Roberts concluded, cannot.

Trump called opponents of his tariffs "obnoxious, ignorant and loud," and accused the justices of acting out of fear of critics. He said there were "great" alternative methods available to achieve his economic goals, and asserted they would bring in even more revenue than tariffs. He called the plaintiffs in the lawsuit "sleazebags."

Trump last month warned that "If the Supreme Court rules against the United States of America on this National Security bonanza, WE’RE SCREWED!" He said the country would be on the hook to pay back "many Hundreds of Billion of Dollars" in revenue collected from the tariffs and "Trillions" more in private investments.

Follow along with live updates from USA TODAY.

Pritzker sends Trump $8.6B invoice for tariffs

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, a Democrat who is frequently at odds with the president, sent Trump an invoice demanding an $8.6 billion refund for tariffs paid.

Pritzker said his state’s 5.1 million residents each paid an estimated $1,700 in tariffs during the last year. But he said Trump’s “hand-picked” Supreme Court notified him the emergency tariffs were unconstitutional.

“The letter and attached invoice stand as an official notice that compensation is owed the people of Illinois, and if you do not comply we will pursue further action,” Pritzker wrote.

The invoice calls the payment “delinquent” and “past due.”

--Bart Jansen

Poll: Most Americans support tariff ruling

A new survey released hours after the Supreme Court’s decision finds 60% of U.S. adults support the ruling striking down President Trump’s tariffs.

The Feb. 20 online poll of 1,932 adults conducted by YouGov shows just 23% disapproving of the 6-3 ruling with a sharp partisan divide with 88% of Democrats and 63% of independents approving versus 47% of Republicans disapproving.

--Phillip M. Bailey

Trump becomes Mr. Ten Percent with new tariffs

Trump said he would immediately impose 10% temporary tariffs to replace the emergency tariffs the Supreme Court had overturned.

Congress has delegated the president the power to impose tariffs in other ways. For example, he’s used the 1962 Trade Expansion Act to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum based on Commerce Department investigations − which aren’t affected by the court’s decision.

Another path for tariffs is the 1974 Trade Act, for unfair trade practices that the U.S. trade representative investigates. “All we’re doing is going through a little more complicated process," Trump said.

Trump cited another section of the 1974 Trade Act for the 10% tariffs he planned to sign. The new tariffs apply to countries that send the United States more than they import. But that type of tariff lasts for only 150 days.

"We have tariffs. We just have them in a different way," Trump said.

--Bart Jansen

Vance: Supreme Court is 'lawless' 

Trump administration officials continued to follow the president's lead by lashing out at the conservative-leaning Supreme Court after it stuck down his global tariffs.

“This is lawlessness from the Court, plain and simple,” Vice President JD Vance said in a Feb. 20 post on X. “And (it’s) only effect will be to make it harder for the president to protect American industries and supply chain resiliency.”

The high court’s ruling is revealing a significant split among Republicans, including lawmakers on Capitol Hill such as Sen. Rand Paul, of Kentucky, and former Vice President Mike Pence, who have cheered the 6-3 decision.

But GOP officials and activists in Trump’s corner are swinging at the high court, including Vance, his potential heir to the MAGA movement, who said the president has a “wide range of other tariff powers” at his disposal.

--Phillip M. Bailey

Trump calls handpicked justices 'an embarrassment to their families’

Trump’s attacks on the Supreme Court justices who ruled against him included criticism of two of the three he appointed: Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett.

Gorsuch and Barrett joined Chief Justice John Roberts and the court's three liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson in striking down Trump's emergency tariffs.

“I think it’s an embarrassment to their families,” Trump said of their votes.

The president declined to say whether he regrets choosing them for the high court, while heaping praise on his third appointee, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who voted against the ruling alongside conservatives Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

--Maureen Groppe

US Chamber of Commerce hails Supreme Court decision

Despite some murkiness from President Trump on what comes next, the US Chamber of Commerce called the Supreme Court's ruling "welcome news for businesses and consumers."

“We encourage the administration to use this opportunity to reset overall tariff policy in a manner that will lead to greater economic growth, larger wage gains for workers, and lower costs for families," Neil Bradley, the chamber's chief policy officer, said in a statement. "Swift refunds of the impermissible tariffs will be meaningful for the more than 200,000 small business importers in this country and will help support stronger economic growth this year."

The group filed an amicus brief in the case on behalf of small businesses suing the Trump administration. "We encourage the administration to use this opportunity to reset overall tariff policy in a manner that will lead to greater economic growth, larger wage gains for workers, and lower costs for families," Bradley said. 

--Terry Collins

Will Trump have to refund billions in tariffs?

Trump castigated the court for not spelling out what happens to the tens of billions of dollars the government has already collected.

“Wouldn’t you think they would have put one sentence in there saying, 'Keep the money or don’t keep the money,’ right?” Trump said. “I guess it has to get litigated for the next two years.”

Tariffs under the Trump administration generated between $200 billion and $250 billion in federal revenue between Jan. 20, 2025, and early 2026, according to the Tax Policy Center.

--Maureen Groppe and Swapna Venugopal Ramaswamy

Pence calls tariff ruling ‘a victory for the American people’

Former Vice President Mike Pence, who served during Trump’s first term, called the Supreme Court’s decision “a Victory for the American People.”

Pence said the Constitution gave Congress and not the president the power to tax.

“Today’s 6-3 ruling by the Supreme Court is a Victory for the American People and a Win for the Separation of Powers enshrined in the Constitution of the United States,” Pence said on social media. “American families and American businesses pay American tariffs - not foreign countries. With this decision, American families and businesses can breathe a sigh of relief.”

Trump, meanwhile, called the ruling "a ridiculous decision."

--Bart Jansen

Gorsuch: Decision will bring stability

Justice Neil Gorsuch, the first of three conservatives Trump appointed to the court, wrote a separate opinion stressing the importance of major policies like taxes and tariffs going through Congress.

“Through that process, the Nation can tap the combined wisdom of the people’s elected representatives, not just that of one faction or man,” he wrote. “And because laws must earn such broad support to survive the legislative process, they tend to endure, allowing ordinary people to plan their lives in ways they cannot when the rules shift from day to day.”

--Maureen Groppe

Tariff refunds could total $175 billion

The government will have to refund about $175 billion in tariffs that the Supreme Court ruled were collected without congressional authorization, according to an estimate Feb. 20 by the Penn Wharton Budget Model at the University of Pennsylvania.

The high court ruled that Trump wasn’t authorized to impose tariffs under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The emergency tariffs account for about half what the government collects in tariffs.

“We project that reversing the IEEPA tariffs will generate up to $175 billion in refunds,” the Penn Wharton Budget Model said. “Unless replaced by another source, future tariff revenue collections will fall by half.”

--Bart Jansen

Canada trade official supports SCOTUS ruling on tariffs

Dominic LeBlanc, Canada's top official in charge of US-Canada trade matters, said in a lengthy post on X that the Supreme Court ruling reinforces Canada’s position that the IEEPA (International Emergency Economic Powers Act)  "tariffs imposed by the United States are unjustified."

LeBlanc said Canada is "working to create growth and opportunities on both sides of the border, while strengthening our collaboration with reliable trading partners and allies around the world."

LeBlanc is reportedly scheduled to meet with US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer in Washington, "in the coming weeks," after a scheduled Canadian trade mission with fellow partner Mexico.

--Terry Collins

What does the ruling mean for drug prices?

The pharmaceutical industry is not directly affected by the Supreme Court ruling on tariffs because drugmakers have been exempt from the Trump administration’s reciprocal tariffs.

But that doesn’t mean drug companies can’t face future duties.

In April 2025, the Department of Commerce launched a probe on whether imports of pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical ingredients pose a threat to the U.S. national security.

The investigation seeks to address how trade policies impact domestic drug production and whether tariffs are needed to protect national security. The Trump administration has used these filings − section 232 of the 1960s-era Trade Expansion Act − to assess industry-specific tariffs.

Several drug companies also have negotiated “most favored nation” deals with the Trump administration under the threat of tariffs. Under these deals, drug companies have agree to discount medications to Medicaid and via the Trump administration’s direct-to-consumer website, TrumpRx. 

--Ken Alltucker

Mayors welcome Supreme Court decision overturning tariffs

Oklahoma City Mayor David Holt, the president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, commended the Supreme Court for overturning President Donald Trump’s emergency tariffs.

“Though the wisdom of tariff policy is not the Court’s concern, America’s mayors have consistently opposed recent tariffs that have threatened to damage our economy, our international relationships, and our border cities,” Holt said in a statement. “We welcome the reconsideration of recent tariff policy that this decision now forces.”

--Bart Jansen

House will work with Trump on ‘best path forward’ after high court decision

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-Louisiana, said he would work with the administration to determine the “best path forward” after the Supreme Court overturned Trump’s emergency tariffs.

“No one can deny that the President’s use of tariffs has brought in billions of dollars and created immense leverage for America’s trade strategy and for securing strong, reciprocal America-first trade agreements with countries that had been taking advantage of American workers for decades,” Johnson said on social media.

--Bart Jansen

Justices gave tariff opponents ‘everything we asked for’: lawyer

Neal Katyal, a former acting U.S. solicitor general who argued against tariffs at the Supreme Court, said the high court gave him everything he asked for in the case.

“Its message was simple: Presidents are powerful, but our Constitution is more powerful still,” Katyal said on social media. “In America, only Congress can impose taxes on the American people. The U.S. Supreme Court gave us everything we asked for in our legal case.”

Katyal said the decision delivered crucial relief to tens of thousands of businesses and millions of consumers who had to pay the tariffs.

--Bart Jansen

Trump to discuss tariff decision at 12:45 p.m. Eastern

President Donald Trump will hold a news conference at 12:45 p.m. Eastern to discuss the Supreme Court’s decision overturning his emergency tariffs.

Trump has argued that the tariffs are crucial to his ability to open foreign markets to more trade, to encourage companies to boost manufacturing in the United States and to raise money for the federal budget. But he has other options to impose tariffs.

The high court ruled he wasn’t authorized to impose tariffs under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act. But other statutes would allow Trump to impose tariffs, as he has on steel and aluminum, which weren’t affected by the decision.

--Bart Jansen

Court decision knocks estimated $2 trillion hole in federal budget

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated in November that all of Trump’s tariffs would generate about $2.5 trillion over the next decade and reduce debt payments about $500 million.

Trump’s emergency tariffs accounted for a significant portion of that revenue.

"With today’s Supreme Court ruling affirming the illegality of President Trump’s emergency tariffs, the country will now be about $2 trillion deeper in the hole,” said Maya MacGuineas, president of the advocacy group Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. "We are in a dismal fiscal situation, and it just got worse.”

--Bart Jansen

Democrats welcome Supreme Court’s decision striking down emergency tariffs

Democratic senators welcomed the high court striking down Trump’s emergency tariffs.

Assistant Minority Leader Dick Durbin, D-Illinois, said the “misguided” policy created a burden on families and businesses.

“Today’s ruling is a win for the American people and, in a rare instance, shows the Supreme Court can use its constitutional authority to stop the corruption and chaos of the Trump presidency,” Durbin said in a statement.

Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, the top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, called the tariff regime “nothing short of economic arson” but that the court’s decision “puts an important leash” on it.

“On a whim, the President would upend entire industries and drastically drive up costs or block our small businesses from markets they depended on – it was sheer stupidity that cost us jobs and drove up prices for just about everyone,” Murray said.

--Bart Jansen

'They are clearly lawful'

In a dissent joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, Justice Brett Kavanaugh called tariffs a “traditional and common tool to regulate importation” that the law gives to the president.

“The tariffs at issue here may or may not be wise policy,” Kavanaugh wrote. “But as a matter of text, history, and precedent, they are clearly lawful.”

And he said the majority’s decision “says nothing” about whether and how the government must return the billions of dollars already collected.

That process, Kavanaugh said, will likely be a "mess.”

Trump called the ruling a "disgrace" after the decision came during his meeting with state governors, Reuters repoted.

Tariffs struck down

The decision could quiet some critics who've complained that the court – which has a 6-3 conservative majority – has allowed Trump to make major policy moves without authorization from Congress after it blocked big initiatives of President Joe Biden, a Democrat.

Trump had been counting on the tariffs to boost the federal budget by more than $2 trillion over the next decade and bring manufacturing back to the United States.

The president had warned the court that striking down his tariffs would have “catastrophic consequences for our national security, foreign policy and the economy.”

But administration officials have also noted they have alternate means of imposing import fees and promised to move quickly to use them.

That means the uncertainty about operating costs is likely to persist for retailers and other businesses even as they celebrate the decision that Trump can’t use a 1977 emergency powers law to sidestep a more complex and limited tariffs process laid out in other laws.

“Because farmers are caught in a cost-price squeeze and ag input costs remain high, we urge the President to refrain from imposing tariffs on agricultural inputs using other authorities,” Scott Metzger, an Ohio farmer and president of the American Soybean Association, said after the ruling.

Tariffs are paid by companies when they import goods from other countries. In anticipation of the ruling, thousands of companies filed lawsuits to try to obtain refunds.

Stock market cheers SCOTUS tariff ruling

Major U.S. stock indexes erased early losses after the Supreme Court struck down President Donald Trump’s emergency tariffs.

In a 6-3 decision, the court found Trump exceeded his powers by imposing duties without clear authorization from Congress. The ruling did not address whether tariffs that have already been paid would need to be refunded.

Stocks, especially retailers like Nike, Deckers Outdoors and Abercrombie & Fitch that were hit hard last year by rising import and manufacturing costs due to tariffs, rose and pushed overall indexes higher.

At 10:53 a.m. ET, the broad S&P 500 index was up 0.62%, or 42.82 points, to 6,904.71 while the blue-chip Dow gained 0.25%, or 122.42 points, to 49,517.58. The tech-heavy Nasdaq added 1.06%, or 239.219 points, to 22,921.948. The benchmark 10-year Treasury yield ticked up to 4.094%.

Stocks had opened lower after data showed sluggish economic growth in the final three months of 2025. Gross domestic product increased 1.4%, far below the 2.5% gain that economists polled by Dow Jones had anticipated, reflecting a larger-than-expected effect from the record-long government shutdown. The Commerce Department estimated the work stoppage shaved off around 1 percentage point from economic growth.

--Medora Lee

Foreign business leaders say tariff ruling could bring more uncertainty

Foreign leaders reacted warily to the decision because the Trump administration could impose tariffs in other ways than declaring emergencies. One statute permits tariffs on imports that threaten national security and another would allow retaliatory tariffs against countries that send the United States more goods than they import.

Candace Laing, president and CEO of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, said the decision was a legal ruling, not a reset of U.S. trade policy.

"Canada should prepare for new, blunter mechanisms to be used to reassert trade pressure, potentially with broader and more disruptive effects," Laing said in a statement.

William Bain, head of trade policy at the British Chambers of Commerce, said different legislation was used to impose U.S. tariffs on steel and aluminum.

“While this decision gives clarity on the President’s executive powers to raise tariffs it does little to clear the murky waters for business,” Bain said in a statement.

--Bart Jansen

Newsom, Paul poke weigh in on tariffs and Trump

California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Trump nemesis, reposted a post on X from his press office's account, criticizing the president, and raised a probing question maybe on the minds of millions of Americans after the Supreme Court's tariff ruling.

"CALLED IT! Trump’s tariffs were ILLEGAL from day one," the post said. "An unconstitutional tax — and now it’s dead. WHEN IS TRUMP GOING TO REFUND EVERY DAY AMERICAN PEOPLE THE $1,700 HE ILLEGALLY TAXED THEM?"

Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, who occasionally pokes at the Trump adminstration, also said in a post on X that "the Supreme Court struck down using emergency powers to enact taxes."

"This ruling will also prevent a future President such as AOC from using emergency powers to enact socialism," Paul said.

In another X post, Paul said that the Supreme Court makes plain what should have been obvious. "The power to impose tariffs is 'very clearly a branch of the power to tax.'"

--Terry Collins

Companies sought refunds even before Supreme Court decision

Even before the high court overturned Trump’s emergency tariffs, thousands of companies sued to recover the billions already collected. But government officials have said that governmentrefunds will go out without the need for litigation.

Costco Wholesale, Revlon and Goodyear Tires were among the companies seeking refunds through lawsuits at the U.S. Court of International Trade. Small businesses said they had to take out loans, cancel expansion plans and freeze hiring to cope with tariffs.

"Today's Supreme Court decision is a tremendous victory for America's small businesses who have been bearing the crushing weight of these tariffs,” said Dan Anthony, executive director of the advocacy group We Pay the Tariffs.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told Reuters on Jan. 9 that the administration has adequate funds to refund tariffs, but repayments would be spread out over weeks or even a year. The Treasury had nearly $774 billion in cash on hand on Jan. 8.

--Bart Jansen

EU monitoring Trump, still wants low tariffs

The European Union said in a pair of posts on X it is closely watching the Trump administration's next moves after the Supreme Court decided to strike down the president's tariffs.

"We take note of the ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court and are analysing it carefully," European Commission Deputy Chief Spokesperson Olof Gill said. "We remain in close contact with the U.S. Administration as we seek clarity on the steps they intend to take in response to this ruling," Gill said.

In a second post, Gill added, "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."

--Terry Collins

Trump relied on emergency law

The 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, passed after the Watergate scandal during a time when Congress wanted to reign in executive power, has historically been used to impose economic sanctions and other penalties on foreign countries. But the administration argued that the authority the law gives presidents to “regulate” importation in response to an "unusual and extraordinary threat" includes the power to impose tariffs.

Beginning in early 2025, Trump used the law to impose tariffs on almost all goods imported into the United States to reduce persistent trade deficits, which he says have hollowed out the nation’s manufacturing base.

Trump used other tariffs he imposed on goods imported from Mexico, Canada and China as leverage to get those countries to do more to stop fentanyl from coming into the United States.

Small businesses took on Trump

Multiple small businesses and a dozen states with Democratic attorneys general sued the administration.

They argued that Trump stretched the word “regulate” beyond its plain meaning. If “regulate” means “tax,” they said, then a president “could tax everything from autos to zoos,” even though the Constitution gives Congress the power to raise revenue.

During the November oral arguments, the Justice Department described the tariffs as “regulatory,” imposed for foreign and domestic policy reasons rather than to boost the government’s coffers. But Trump had also bragged about tariffs being a substantial revenue raiser.

Still, the administration argued that Congress wanted presidents to have major power over international trade during an emergency and that’s appropriate because the Constitution gives presidents broad authority in foreign affairs.

Roberts, however, said that when Congress has delegated its tariff powers, it has done so in explicit terms, and subject to strict limits.

"What common sense suggests, congressional practice confirms," he wrote.

The court’s three liberals – Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson – did not agree with the full reasoning of Roberts’ opinion.

In a separate opinion, Kagan wrote for the trio that the tariffs can be invalidated based on the text of the statute alone. The liberal justices did not back Roberts’ use of the “major questions” legal theory, which prevents the executive branch from taking actions that have a major impact on the economy or are a matter of great “political significance” without clear authorization from Congress.

That principle was used by the court to block Biden's attempt to forgive $400 billion in student loan debt.

The court likewise previously ruled Biden couldn’t extend an eviction moratorium tied to the COVID-19 pandemic and the Environmental Protection Agency could not regulate power plant emissions that contribute to climate change.

“We have long expressed `reluctance to read into ambiguous statutory text’ extraordinary delegations of Congress’ powers,” Roberts wrote in citing those past rulings in the tariffs decision.

Lower courts sided with the challengers, although the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was divided.

Polls consistently show that the tariffs are unpopular.

The cases of Learning Resources v. Trump and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections were the first time a challenge to a policy Trump enacted during his second term got a full hearing at the Supreme Court. Until deciding those cases, the justices had issued only interim decisions about whether Trump’s policies could remain in effect while they’re being litigated. In those temporary rulings, Trump has been overwhelmingly successful.

Contributing: Reuters