The Supreme Court\u2019s 6-3 decision on Friday wiping out a chunk of President Donald Trump\u2019s tariff regime is a triumph for the Constitution\u2019s separation of powers and the individual liberty that it protects.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The decision<\/a>\u00a0by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. says nothing about whether the tariffs are good or bad policy. But it recognizes that they are a major tax, and that raising revenue is a \u201cdistinct\u201d power that belongs to Congress. There\u2019s a reason the 18th century American revolutionary slogan was \u201cno taxation without representation.\u201d Taxing citizens without consent from their elected representatives is antithetical to the American project.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Congress never approved the worldwide tariffs at issue in the case. Trump told the court they were authorized by a 1977 law, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. No president has used IEEPA to impose tariffs, but it contains the phrase \u201cregulate \u2026 importation.\u201d Trump said that was sufficient authorization for him to throw out the rest of the tariff schedules and set import taxes however he pleased.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Roberts saw the flimsiness of that reasoning. \u201cBased on two words separated by 16 others,\u201d he wrote, \u201cthe 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.\u201d Indeed. The executive branch can\u2019t be allowed to grab hundreds of billions of dollars from the American people on such a thin legal basis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Read it all<\/a>.<\/p The Supreme Court\u2019s decision to invalidate the Trump administration\u2019s broad tariffs strips the president of a central instrument of his foreign policy, undercutting his ability to coerce global leaders and reshape world order in his second term.https:\/\/t.co\/mktSe8eQIw<\/a><\/p>— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) February 20, 2026<\/a><\/blockquote>