Remember the Kawasaki case against tariffs? It was filed with the US Court of International Trade, and Team Green was far from alone in expressing its displeasure through legal filings in this manner. Plenty of other very recognizable household names like Costco, YETI Coolers, Goodyear Tires, and even GoPro have so far joined the list of companies looking to have these tariffs dismissed, and also to have the money they've already paid for tariffed shipments refunded.
The ITC, however, put all of those cases on hold while it awaited a final, lasting decision from the US Supreme Court regarding whether the IEEPA tariff declaration was even legal for the President to issue in the first place.
On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court finally issued this long-awaited decision. In a 6 to 3 opinion, issued by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court declared the invocation of the IEEPA tariffs specifically to be illegal. If you read the opinion, you'll soon find that it very specifically mentions things like the idea that IEEPA does not "grant the President an expansive peacetime tariff power." In fact, it mentions "peacetime" and "wartime" a few times, differentiating between what's allowed in both instances.
Other Justices on the court also submitted their opinions, both concurring and dissenting. Justice Gorsuch's concurring opinion serves to remind anyone who took a US Government class in school that Congress is the legislative branch of the federal government, meaning they're the ones charged with enacting new laws. Meanwhile, the Executive branch is, according to the Constitution, charged with executing the laws enacted by Congress.
Those two powers certainly relate to and interact with one another, but they are not the same thing (by design).
Gorsuch's opinion goes on to say that, "Article I [of the US Constitution] grants Congress, not the President, the power to impose tariffs. Still, the President claims, Congress passed that power on to him in IEEPA, permitting him to impose tariffs on nearly any goods he wishes, in any amount he wishes, based on emergencies he himself has declared. He insists, as well, that his emergency declarations are unreviewable. A ruling for him here, the President acknowledges, would afford future Presidents the same latitude he asserts for himself....So another President might impose tariffs on gas-powered automobiles to respond to climate change. Or really, on virtually any imports for any emergency any President might perceive. And all of these emergency declarations would be unreviewable. Just ask yourself: What President would willingly give up that kind of power?"
Later in the opinion, Gorsuch goes on to observe that, "Americans fought the Revolution in no small part because they believed that only their elected representatives (not the King, not even Parliament) possessed authority to tax them [as noted in the Declaration of Independence]. And, they believed, that held true not just for direct taxes like those in the Stamp Act, but also for many duties on imports, like those found in the Sugar Act."
Opinions differ even among the concurring Justices, with all ultimately agreeing that the IEEPA tariffs are illegal, but coming at their arguments from slightly different angles. I won't rehash all of them here, but if you have the time, you might find it interesting to read through them. (Hey, it's almost the weekend, and I'm going to take the liberty of assuming that if you're reading this piece at all, you might be at least some level of the kind of detail-oriented nerd I am. If so, hello and welcome!)
Justice Kagan's opinion adds, "The surrounding statutory language confirms the point. As the principal opinion explains, "regulate" is one of 9 verbs listed in IEEPA's delegation provision. (The others are "investigate," "block," "direct," "compel," "nullify," "void," "prevent," and "prohibit.") Those verbs are followed by 11 objects, each describing a distinct sort of transaction involving foreign property—not just "importation," but also "acquisition," "use," "transfer," and so forth. Combine the verbs and objects in all possible ways, and the statute authorizes 99 actions a President can take to address a foreign threat. And exactly none of the other 98 involves raising revenues."
In other words, argues Kagan, IEEPA permits 99 actions, but a tariff ain't one.
Justice Jackson's opinion also adds the plain-language banger, "When Congress tells us why it has included certain language in a statute, the limited role of the courts in our democratic system of government—as interpreters, not lawmakers—demands that we give effect to the will of the people."
In writing the dissenting opinion, Justice Kavanaugh almost appears as though he agrees that Congress should issue the authorization. Why do I say "almost"? Because his dissent reads in part, "Since early in U.S. history, Congress has regularly authorized the President to impose tariffs on imports of foreign goods." But where the distinction seems to be drawn amongst the dissenting justices and those finding the IEEPA tariffs illegal is in whether IEEPA may substantially be interpreted as Congress delegating taxation powers to the President.
The six Supreme Court justices who have declared these tariffs illegal do not see IEEPA as being interpretable in this way, while the three dissenting justices, well, dissent on this issue as the main (though not only) point of contention.
There are a few somewhat strange things in Kavanaugh's dissent as written, though. One is that it repeats itself a few times, which is a bit odd. Another is that, instead of merely citing a number of legal precedents to back up individual pieces of his opinion, there's also a segment where he appears to offer a small bit of legal guidance to the Executive Branch if it's looking for a tariff loophole.
What do I mean? Here, see what you think of this paragraph from Kavanaugh's dissent:
It reads, "Although I firmly disagree with the Court's holding today, the decision might not substantially constrain a President's ability to order tariffs going forward. That is because numerous other federal statutes authorize the President to impose tariffs and might justify most (if not all) of the tariffs at issue in this case—albeit perhaps with a few additional procedural steps that IEEPA, as an emergency statute, does not require. Those statutes include, for example, the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (Section 232); the Trade Act of 1974 (Sections 122, 201, and 301); and the Tariff Act of 1930 (Section 338). In essence, the Court today concludes that the President checked the wrong statutory box by relying on IEEPA rather than another statute to impose these tariffs."
Unsolicited legal advice, anyone?
While I definitely don't read every single Supreme Court opinion that comes out, this part strikes me as being a bit...strange. Surely the Executive Branch has its own flotilla of highly-paid attorneys to research, determine legal strategy, and argue its cases for it, right? They don't need a Supreme Court Justice, who arguably has more pressing matters to attend to, to give them legal advice?
What Comes Next?
Justice Kavanaugh's dissent suggests that any refund process is likely to be "a mess," since billions of dollars may be required to be refunded to those companies that have so far remitted tariffs to the government. But much like the fallout of the release of the Epstein Files is just starting to result in at least some delayed justice (see the arrest of some royal guy named Andrew, as well as general European sentiment), that doesn't mean that it isn't worth pursuing.
Just because something is difficult or challenging doesn't mean you shouldn't do it.
As for the tariffs case(s) that were stayed by the US Court of International Trade, presumably now that the Supreme Court has issued this decision, the three-judge panel there can begin to move forward with making a determination on how and when the hundreds of plaintiffs that have filed suit against this administration over the IEEPA tariffs may be able to seek refunds.
It's February 20, 2026, as I write this, which is the day that this Supreme Court opinion was issued. Presumably, it will take some time for the ITC to schedule and take further action on Kawasaki's (and everyone else's) case. However, I'll be keeping an eye on it as it develops, and will be sure to keep you updated here at RideApart as and when future developments arise. Unsurprisingly, the President and his administration aren't happy with this decision, and have pledged to seek other ways to enact tariffs, so stay tuned.
