Daniella Cass, Aaron Gyde, Patrick Fuster, Samantha Sewall, Dominic Solari, Dorkas Medina, Erika Holmberg, Layla Reynolds, Hui Fang, Nicole Martinez, Sarah Burns, Zach Kosbie
March 4, 2026
Supreme Court Invalidates President Trump’s Tariffs

2 min
AI-made summary
- • On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. • President Trump had invoked IEEPA in 2025 to issue executive orders imposing tariffs up to 125% based on declared emergencies of fentanyl trafficking and trade imbalances. • Lower courts, including the U.S
- District Court for the District of Columbia and the U.S
- Court of International Trade, previously ruled that IEEPA does not grant tariff authority. • The Supreme Court affirmed that IEEPA does not grant the President any authority to impose tariffs, regardless of the emergency declared.
Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, No. 24-1287 Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, No. 25-250 – Decided February 20, 2026~~Today, the Supreme Court held 6-3 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not grant the President the power to impose tariffs.~~“Based on two words separated by 16 others in Section 1702(a)(1)(B) of IEEPA—’regulate’ and ‘importation’—the President asserts the independent power to impose tariffs on imports from any country, of any product, at any rate, for any amount of time. Those words cannot bear such weight.”~~Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the Court~~Background:~~The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) grants the President the power, upon declaring a national emergency, to “regulate . . . importation or exportation of . . . any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest.” 50 U.S.C. § 1702(a)(1)(B). From February to April 2025, President Trump invoked IEEPA and issued five executive orders imposing tariffs of up to 125% based on declared emergencies of fentanyl trafficking and trade imbalances. In subsequent months, the President amended and altered those tariffs.~~Some plaintiffs challenged the tariffs in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, while others challenged the tariffs in the U.S. Court of International Trade. Both courts ruled against President Trump’s tariffs. The District Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction on the grounds that IEEPA does not grant the President the authority to impose any tariffs. Before the D.C. Circuit ruled on the appeal of the preliminary injunction, the Supreme Court granted certiorari before judgment. The Court of International Trade granted summary judgment to plaintiffs, holding that IEEPA does not authorize tariffs based on trade imbalances because they are governed by a different statute. On appeal, the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed 7-4, holding that, while IEEPA may authorize some tariffs, it does not authorize tariffs as broad or large as the challenged tariffs.~~Issue:~~Are President Trump’s emergency tariffs authorized by IEEPA? If so, does IEEPA unconstitutionally delegate legislative authority to the President?~~Court’s Holding:~~No. IEEPA does not grant the President any authority to impose tariffs.~~What It Means:~~The Court’s opinion is available here.~~Gibson Dunn’s lawyers are available to assist in addressing any questions you may have regarding developments at the Supreme Court. Please feel free to contact the following practice group leaders:~~Appellate and Constitutional Law~~Related Practice: International Trade Advisory and Enforcement~~This alert was prepared by associates and counsel Daniella Cass, Aaron Gyde, Patrick Fuster, Samantha Sewall, Dominic Solari, Dorkas Medina, Erika Holmberg, Layla Reynolds, Hui Fang, Nicole Martinez, Sarah Burns, and Zach Kosbie.~~© 2026 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. All rights reserved. For contact and other information, please visit us at www.gibsondunn.com.~~Attorney Advertising: These materials were prepared for general informational purposes only based on information available at the time of publication and are not intended as, do not constitute, and should not be relied upon as, legal advice or a legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. Gibson Dunn (and its affiliates, attorneys, and employees) shall not have any liability in connection with any use of these materials. The sharing of these materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship with the recipient and should not be relied upon as an alternative for advice from qualified counsel. Please note that facts and circumstances may vary, and prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.~~Download PDF~~
Article Author
Daniella Cass, Aaron Gyde, Patrick Fuster, Samantha Sewall, Dominic Solari, Dorkas Medina, Erika Holmberg, Layla Reynolds, Hui Fang, Nicole Martinez, Sarah Burns, Zach Kosbie
The Sponsor
