• The US Supreme Court ruled 6-3 against Trump's global tariffs, stating he lacked authority under federal law.
• Trump responded by announcing a new global 10% tariff using alternative legal provisions.
• Over $130 billion in tariff revenue is now subject to potential refunds amid ongoing uncertainties.

The US Supreme Court issued a significant 6-3 ruling against former President Donald Trump's sweeping global tariffs on February 20, 2026, determining that his invocation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose these tariffs exceeded his presidential authority. The justices held that such economic measures require explicit congressional approval, reaffirming that tax imposition lies within Congress's purview, thus checking Trump's expansive use of executive power, according to Channel News Asia, Times of India, and Reuters.

The ruling invalidated tariffs that Trump had applied broadly across nearly all US trading partners, which he initially justified by citing the need to address national security concerns related to illicit drug trafficking. However, the court found no provision in IEEPA that explicitly permits imposing tariffs, as it did not include such language, leading to the unprecedented ruling against Trump's authority, according to Times of India and BBC.

In a swift reaction, Trump announced plans to impose a new 10% global tariff using Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, a provision previously unused that allows temporary tariffs for 150 days. This move reflects his intention to circumvent the ruling and continue his agenda, signaling that the conflict over trade powers remains unresolved, as reported by Reuters and BBC.

The Supreme Court's decision also raises questions regarding a potential refund of more than $130 billion collected from tariffs deemed unlawful. The court did not provide guidance on how refunds should be handled, leading to uncertainty about the financial implications for businesses and consumers, according to Channel News Asia and BBC.

Importantly, this ruling reflects a broader constitutional principle asserting that taxation power is firmly held by Congress, further emphasizing the limits of executive authority in matters with substantial economic impact. The ruling involved a cross-ideological coalition, with even some of Trump's own appointees siding against him, thereby demonstrating the court's role as a check on presidential power, as highlighted by Reuters, Times of India, and Channel News Asia.