Stock Markets February 20, 2026

Supreme Court Rules IEEPA Does Not Authorize Broad Emergency Tariffs

High court says 1977 law cannot be used to impose sweeping import levies in 6-3 decision

By Caleb Monroe
Supreme Court Rules IEEPA Does Not Authorize Broad Emergency Tariffs

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected the Trump administration's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to justify broad import tariffs, concluding in a 6-3 decision that the law does not grant authority for such levies. Justices expressed doubts about the administration's legal arguments during hearings, and markets had been positioned for an adverse ruling. The outcome may shape how tariffs are pursued going forward.

Key Points

  • The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not permit the president to impose broad import tariffs.
  • IEEPA is a 1977 law that grants the president authority over international economic transactions during a declared national emergency; the administration had used it as the legal basis for tariffs.
  • Justices expressed skepticism during hearings late last year, and markets had been anticipating a ruling against the administration; the decision could influence how tariffs are used in future international negotiations.

The Supreme Court delivered a significant check on executive authority by ruling that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a 1977 statute, does not empower the president to impose broad import tariffs under the guise of emergency powers. The decision, decided 6-3, invalidates President Donald Trump’s use of the law to justify levies on a range of trading partners.

IEEPA, the statute at the center of the case, grants the president broad powers over international economic transactions when a national emergency is declared. The Trump administration had relied on that statute as its legal basis for placing tariffs on imports from a host of countries.

At oral arguments late last year, several justices voiced skepticism about the administration's interpretation of IEEPA, a tone that left market participants expecting a ruling against the White House. The court’s final opinion aligned with that skepticism and found that IEEPA does not authorize the imposition of the tariffs at issue.

The ruling removes one of the legal pillars the administration had used to pursue trade levers during the president’s second term. Observers note that tariffs have been a repeated policy tool for the administration - a means to extract concessions in international negotiations - and the court’s decision could alter the administration’s approach to such measures going forward.

The case’s outcome has immediate legal significance and carries potential implications for trade policy and market participants that had been tracking the litigation. Given indications from the bench during hearings, markets had been anticipating a decision unfavorable to the administration.

This remains a developing story. Please check back later for updates.

Risks

  • Uncertainty about how the administration will proceed with tariff policy now that a key legal pathway has been closed - impacts policy direction and international trade negotiations.
  • Market responses to legal and policy developments remain uncertain, despite prior anticipation of an adverse ruling by some market participants.
  • The legal interpretation of IEEPA in other contexts may remain unsettled until additional litigation clarifies permissible executive actions under the statute.

More from Stock Markets

U.K. Shares Rise; United Kingdom 100 Reaches New Record Close Feb 20, 2026 Belgian equities slip as BEL 20 closes down 0.17% Feb 20, 2026 OMX Stockholm 30 Closes Higher, Reaches New Record High Feb 20, 2026 Helsinki index closes at record high as consumer, financial and telecom names lead gains Feb 20, 2026 Supreme Court Rules Trump-Era Emergency Tariffs Illegal - Refund Path Now Falls to Trade Court Feb 20, 2026