NEED TO KNOW

• Trump claims the Supreme Court “accidentally” gave him more power after it struck down his IEEPA tariffs 6-3
• Both Trump-appointed Justices Gorsuch and Barrett sided with the majority, drawing personal attacks from the president
• Replacement 15% global tariff under Section 122 faces a 150-day limit and its own legal challenges

WASHINGTON, DC (TDR) — President Donald Trump claimed Monday morning that the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling striking down his tariffs had “accidentally and unwittingly” expanded his presidential powers, writing on Truth Social that the decision enables him to use “Licenses to do absolutely ‘terrible’ things to foreign countries.”

The post represents the president’s latest attempt to reframe a decisive 6-3 defeat on his signature economic policy as a strategic advantage — even as legal experts, members of his own party and trading partners assess the fallout from a ruling that invalidated the use of emergency powers for tariffs and left more than $130 billion in collected revenue facing potential refund claims.

“The supreme court (will be using lower case letters for a while based on a complete lack of respect!) of the United States accidentally and unwittingly gave me, as President of the United States, far more powers and strength than I had prior to their ridiculous, dumb, and very internationally divisive ruling.” — Donald Trump

What the Court Actually Ruled

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10

On Friday, Feb. 20, Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the majority opinion in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, holding that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the president to impose tariffs. The ruling marked the first time the Supreme Court issued a final decision — not a temporary stay — against a major Trump policy.

Roberts wrote that two words in IEEPA — “regulate” and “importation” — “cannot bear such weight” to justify unlimited presidential tariff authority. The decision invoked the major questions doctrine, the same constitutional framework the Court used to block President Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan in 2023.

“IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties. The Government points to no statute in which Congress used the word ‘regulate’ to authorize taxation. And until now no President has read IEEPA to confer such power.” — Chief Justice John Roberts

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE THE DUPREE REPORT

The decision split the Court’s conservative majority. Trump-appointed Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett joined Roberts and the three liberal justices. Justices Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh and Samuel Alito dissented.

Gorsuch, in a 46-page concurrence, issued a warning that went beyond the tariff question itself.

“Without doctrines like major questions, our system of separated powers and checks-and-balances threatens to give way to the continual and permanent accretion of power in the hands of one man. That is no recipe for a republic.” — Justice Neil Gorsuch

Trump Attacks His Own Appointees

The president responded with escalating personal attacks on the justices he nominated to the bench. At a hastily arranged White House press conference Friday, Trump called the ruling “a disgrace to our nation” and singled out Gorsuch and Barrett.

“I think their decision was terrible. I think it’s an embarrassment to their families, you want to know the truth, the two of them.” — Donald Trump

He labeled the six majority justices “fools and lapdogs for the RINOs and the radical left Democrats,” while praising the three dissenters “for their strength and wisdom and love of our country.” When asked whether the justices who ruled against him were still invited to Tuesday’s State of the Union address, Trump said “barely” and added he “couldn’t care less” if they attended.

The Replacement Tariff Strategy

Within hours of the ruling, the administration pivoted. Trump signed an executive order imposing a 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, a provision that allows temporary import surcharges of up to 15% for 150 days to address balance-of-payments problems. By Saturday, he raised the rate to the full 15% maximum.

The statute has never been used to impose tariffs, and trade economists are already questioning the legal basis. Section 122 requires a “fundamental international payments problem” — a condition that differs from a trade deficit.

“A balance of payments deficit is not the same thing as a trade deficit. You cannot have a balance of payments deficit if you have a flexible exchange rate, as the US currently does.” — Peter Berezin, chief global strategist, BCA Research

The administration also announced Section 301 investigations targeting most major trading partners on an accelerated timeline, and affirmed that existing Section 232 tariffs on steel, aluminum and other products remain in force. The combined strategy is designed to rebuild the tariff regime using authorities the Court did not strike down.

GOP Divided, Democrats Seize Opportunity

The ruling exposed fractures within the Republican Party that could define the 2026 midterm elections. Tariffs remain one of the few policy areas where congressional Republicans have openly broken with Trump — both chambers previously passed resolutions rebuking tariffs on Canada.

“Congress’ role in trade policy, as I have warned repeatedly, is not an inconvenience to avoid. If the executive would like to enact trade policies that impact American producers and consumers, its path forward is crystal clear: convince their representatives under Article 1.” — Sen. Mitch McConnell

Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE), who voted against Trump’s Canada tariffs and is not seeking reelection, predicted that Congress would defeat the new Section 122 tariff order. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) called the Court’s decision “a defense of our Republic” and warned that no future administration — “including a socialist one” — should be able to tax by executive decree.

Democrats, meanwhile, framed the decision as validation of their core midterm campaign message. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) called the tariffs “chaotic and illegal” and demanded refunds for American consumers. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) echoed that call, posting that “the American people paid for these tariffs and the American people should get their money back.”

Trump responded to GOP dissent with political retaliation. On Saturday, he rescinded his endorsement of Colorado Rep. Jeff Hurd (R-CO) over his anti-tariff vote, backing primary challenger Hope Scheppelman instead.

The $130 Billion Question

The ruling left unresolved what may be its most consequential fallout: refunds. Justice Kavanaugh’s dissent warned that the government “may be required to refund billions of dollars to importers” and called the resulting process “a mess.” The majority opinion did not address the question, leaving it to lower courts and potential administrative processes.

Trump suggested at his press conference that refund litigation could take years. When asked if his administration planned to honor refunds, he deflected.

“I guess it has to get litigated for the next two years. So they write this terrible, defective decision, totally defective. It’s almost like not written by smart people.” — Donald Trump

For businesses that absorbed the tariffs — either passing costs to consumers or eating the losses — the refund timeline matters enormously. The National Foreign Trade Council urged Congress to use the ruling as “an inflection point” to reclaim its constitutional trade authority.

The Constitution assigns tariff power to Congress, and the Court just enforced that boundary — but the president is using untested statutory tools to reimpose them. Does the 150-day clock on Section 122 force Congress to finally take ownership of trade policy, or will lawmakers find new ways to avoid the vote?

Sources

This report was compiled using information from SCOTUSblog’s analysis of the ruling, NBC News’ reporting on the decision and White House reaction, NPR’s coverage of the ruling and presidential response, CNN’s reporting on the conservative split, Newsweek’s coverage of Trump’s Monday claims, The Hill’s reporting on congressional reactions and Trump’s attacks on justices, Axios’ explainer on Section 122, CNBC’s tariff coverage and congressional response, Fortune’s analysis of Section 122 legal questions, the Council on Foreign Relations’ assessment, WilmerHale’s legal analysis, TIME’s reporting on Republican responses, and the Supreme Court’s full opinion.

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10