The Supreme Court stopped Trump, he struck back in three days

Introduction: a legal win that lasted only as long as a weekend

February 20, 2026, a Friday that was supposed to change everything

On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States issued one of the most consequential trade rulings in a generation. In Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, consolidated with Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, six justices out of nine ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, known as IEEPA, does not authorize the president to impose tariffs unilaterally.

This ruling struck down in one stroke the so-called "reciprocal" tariffs announced during the famous "Liberation Day" of April 2025, as well as the fentanyl-related tariffs imposed on Canada, Mexico and China. On paper, it was a scathing rebuke of one of the central pillars of Donald Trump's economic policy.

The market's deceptive calm on the day itself

On the day of the announcement, Wall Street initially reacted with relative calm: the Nasdaq rose about 1%, the S&P 500 0.7%, and the Dow Jones 230 points. Analysts, such as Dan Ives of Wedbush Securities, had largely anticipated this ruling and did not see it as a systemic shock. But that surface-level calm would shatter the very next weekend.

The legal anatomy of a 6-to-3 rebuke

Chief Justice Roberts's reasoning

Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote the majority opinion, framed his ruling in terms rarely so clear for the Court: "Our task today is only to determine whether the power to 'regulate . . . importation,' as conferred upon the president by IEEPA, includes the power to impose tariffs. It does not." He added that the president needed "clear congressional authorization" to justify such an extraordinary claim of power, concluding bluntly: "He cannot."

Three justices in the majority — Roberts, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett — invoked the major questions doctrine, a legal principle requiring explicit congressional authorization for any executive decision with exceptionally large economic and political consequences. Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson reached the same conclusion, but through separate statutory reasoning, without relying on that doctrine.

A dissent that already foreshadowed what came next

Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito disagreed, arguing that IEEPA did indeed authorize the imposition of tariffs. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Kavanaugh wrote a line that would prove prophetic: "The Court's decision today will likely not significantly limit the tariff-related authority of the presidency going forward," adding that nothing stopped Trump from imposing "most, if not all" of those same tariffs under other statutory authorities.

That prediction did not take long to come true. This simple fact says a great deal about the real nature of this legal victory: a technical, procedural setback, not a decisive win against the administration's protectionist logic.

The immediate comeback: 15% for everyone, in 72 hours

The Saturday that changed everything

The very day after the ruling, Donald Trump announced his intention to impose a new global tariff of 15%, this time relying on a different trade law dating back to 1974, section 122 of the Trade Act. This new temporary tariff, initially set at 10%, was to take effect almost immediately and remain in place for 150 days — the maximum duration allowed under that statute without further congressional approval.

The speed of this comeback stunned even the most seasoned observers of American trade policy. Within a single weekend, the administration had gone from a resounding legal defeat to putting in place a new tariff framework of nearly equivalent economic scope.

Jamieson Greer, the quiet architect of tariff continuity

The U.S. Trade Representative, Jamieson Greer, summed up the administration's strategy with disarming candor in a televised interview: "The legal tool to implement it, that could change, but the policy hasn't changed," he said. "We're aiming for continuity. There's a 15% tariff now. That's roughly equivalent to the kinds of tariffs we had in place under IEEPA."

This statement alone sums up the essence of this affair: the Supreme Court may have struck down one specific legal tool, but it never had the power to strike down an entire economic doctrine as long as other statutes allow similar outcomes to be reached.

Gold and the dollar: the unfiltered verdict of financial markets

Three weeks' worth of gains for gold in a few sessions

While stock indices reacted with relative indifference, currency and commodity markets delivered a far starker verdict. Gold climbed to its highest level in more than three weeks, with the ounce topping 5,160 dollars, while gold futures broke through the 5,180-dollar mark. This rush toward a safe haven reflected persistent jitters among investors, despite the apparent legal victory against Trump.

According to Bart Melek, global head of commodity strategy, cited by several financial outlets, this ruling also meant the U.S. Treasury Department might have to refund tariff revenue already collected from importers, a prospect creating its own set of budgetary uncertainties for Washington.

The dollar weakened by uncertainty, not clarity

Paradoxically, a court ruling meant to clarify the rules of trade had the opposite effect on the greenback: the dollar weakened after the new global 15% tariff was announced, as markets priced in the return of widespread trade uncertainty rather than any real normalization of American tariff policy. Analysts at private bank UBP explicitly noted that this announcement had "sent the dollar lower and gold higher."

This market move illustrates a simple but often overlooked truth: it is not the tariffs themselves that worry investors most, but the chronic instability of the legal framework surrounding them, an instability this judicial sequence only worsened rather than resolved.

The political calculation behind the speed of the comeback

An administration long prepared for this scenario

The speed with which Jamieson Greer and his team rolled out the new tariff framework strongly suggests the Trump administration had anticipated a defeat at the Supreme Court well before it was officially handed down. As early as January 2026, Greer had in fact publicly stated that the administration would begin "rebuilding" tariffs "the very next day" after an unfavorable ruling, a statement that proved almost surgically precise.

This meticulous preparation shows that the administration never viewed this legal battle as existential to its trade policy, but rather as a temporary procedural obstacle to work around using alternative legal instruments already identified in advance.

Why Congress remains the only real safeguard

What stands out most in this sequence is the striking confirmation that only the U.S. Congress, the constitutional holder of the taxation power, could truly and lastingly end this tariff escalation. Yet with a Republican majority still largely aligned with Trump's agenda, no serious legislative initiative appears to be taking shape to reclaim the power the executive branch continues to exercise de facto, if not de jure.

It is this institutional reality, more than any Supreme Court ruling, that will truly determine the future of American tariff policy in the months ahead.

Consequences for America's trading partners

South Korea, an example of an ally caught in the crossfire

America's trading allies found themselves in a particularly uncomfortable position during this sequence. South Korea, for example, had already accepted a reduced reciprocal tariff of 15%, down from 25% initially, in exchange for a 350-billion-dollar investment commitment in the United States. The judicial invalidation of the IEEPA tariffs could, in theory, have called that bilateral deal into question, before the new section 122 tariff filled the legal void almost instantly.

This constant legal instability imposes a real cost on Washington's trading partners, forced to renegotiate or secure their deals in a context where the rules of the game can change overnight, independent even of the most solemn court rulings.

No trading partner threatened to walk away

Jamieson Greer himself acknowledged on Sunday that none of the nations that had struck trade deals with the United States had indicated any intention to withdraw from them following the Supreme Court ruling. This fact, which might seem reassuring for Washington, actually reveals the structural position of weakness in which most trading partners find themselves against the power of the American market, regardless of the outcome of internal U.S. legal disputes.

This absence of international pushback confirms that the battle to limit Trump's tariff power is being fought almost exclusively on American domestic ground, between the courts, Congress and the executive branch, rather than on the international diplomatic stage.

The impact on American public finances

The specter of massive refunds to importers

One of the most concrete, and least publicized, aspects of this ruling concerns its potential impact on American public finances. Several analysts raised the possibility that up to 175 billion dollars in tariff revenue collected under IEEPA might need to be refunded to importing companies that had challenged those tariffs in court.

Such a refund, if it were actually carried out, would represent one of the largest fiscal restitutions in recent American history, with potential repercussions on the Trump administration's already considerable federal budget deficit.

A nearly neutral net effect on economic projections

Despite the symbolic scale of the ruling, analysts at Goldman Sachs estimated that the new 15% tariff regime had only slightly reduced the expected rise in the effective tariff rate compared to the previous system, bringing it down from roughly ten percentage points to nine. The bank noted that its growth and inflation projections for the American economy remained largely unchanged despite this new tariff framework.

This technical finding confirms, once again, that the economic substance of American trade policy has barely shifted despite the apparent scale of the legal upheaval in February.

What this sequence reveals about America's balance of power

A victory in principle for Congress, without immediate practical consequence

On strictly constitutional grounds, the Supreme Court's ruling represents an important reaffirmation of Congress's power over taxation, a fundamental principle of the American separation of powers. Several experts, notably those at the Brookings Institution, praised the fact that the Court "defended Article I authority" of the Constitution, particularly Congress's budgetary powers against an increasingly expansive executive branch.

But this victory in principle runs into an unforgiving practical reality: as long as Congress refuses to actively exercise this reclaimed power by passing binding legislation, the executive retains considerable latitude to pursue similar goals through other statutory avenues.

A precedent that could still matter in the long run

Even so, this ruling should not be dismissed entirely. It establishes a clear legal precedent: no economic emergency law, however broadly interpreted, can be invoked to justify such sweeping tariff power without explicit congressional authorization. This precedent could prove valuable in future legal challenges, including against tariffs currently in force under other legal grounds.

It is this long-term dimension, more than the ruling's limited immediate impact, that could constitute the most lasting legacy of this historic Supreme Court decision.

The geopolitical dimension: China, the quiet big winner

Tariff instability that paradoxically benefits Beijing

Amid this permanent legal and regulatory chaos surrounding American trade policy, China watches every twist of this judicial saga with obvious strategic interest. An American administration tangled up in internal legal disputes over its own trade tools projects, by definition, an image of lesser predictability to its international partners and rivals.

This chronic instability in American tariff policy paradoxically gives Beijing a convenient rhetorical argument to present itself, in certain international forums, as a more stable and predictable trading partner than Washington — an obviously misleading posture given China's own well-documented unfair trade practices.

The West cannot afford an erratic trade policy against its adversaries

It is precisely because China, Russia and Iran represent structural threats to the Western-led international order that the coherence of American trade policy should be a strategic priority, beyond purely domestic economic considerations. Every episode of legal instability of this kind weakens Washington's ability to project a trade policy coordinated with its European and Asian allies against these shared threats.

This geopolitical dimension of the tariff file deserves to be taken far more seriously by American decision-makers, beyond the short-term electoral or legal calculations that seem to dominate this debate.

The next round: what legal battles lie ahead

The new section 122 tariff already under scrutiny

The new 15% global tariff, based on section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act, is not exempt from close legal scrutiny either. This legal provision explicitly limits this type of tariff's duration to 150 days without further approval, meaning the administration will eventually need to find a new legal basis or secure Congress's approval to keep this tariff regime alive beyond that strict deadline.

Lawyers specializing in international trade law are already closely watching the possibility of new legal challenges against this replacement tariff framework, on legal grounds different from those that prevailed in the Learning Resources case.

An administration ready to explore new legal avenues

Jamieson Greer also mentioned his intention to launch trade investigations under section 301 of the same Trade Act, a separate mechanism that could, in his view, cover "most major trading partners" of the United States. This diversification of legal tools used by the administration illustrates its determination to maintain an aggressive tariff policy regardless of whatever limits courts impose on any one specific instrument.

This strategy of multiplying legal grounds makes the task of legal opponents of Trump's tariff policy considerably more complex, since every victory against one specific legal instrument risks being quickly neutralized by resorting to another statute.

What American businesses now need to anticipate

Uncertainty has become the new structural normal

For American businesses dependent on imports, this legal sequence confirms an already well-established reality: tariff uncertainty is no longer a one-off phenomenon tied to a particularly unpredictable administration, but a durable, structural feature of the American trade environment. Michael Pearce, chief U.S. economist at Oxford Economics, summed up this dynamic well: any short-term economic gain from reduced tariffs will be "partially offset by a prolonged period of uncertainty."

This chronic uncertainty imposes real strategic planning costs on businesses, which now must factor legal and regulatory volatility as a permanent risk factor in their investment and international sourcing decisions.

Wall Street's implicit advice: adapt rather than wait for clarity

The relatively measured reaction of stock markets to this legal sequence suggests institutional investors have already largely priced this new normal of chronic tariff instability into their valuation models. Rather than waiting for a definitive clarification that will probably never come, major American companies are already adjusting their supply chains to this climate of permanent uncertainty.

It is this ability of the American private sector to adapt quickly, more than any definitive resolution of the legal dispute, that could ultimately determine the real economic impact of this tariff saga over the medium term.

The Kavanaugh precedent: a prophecy that questions judicial credibility

When a dissent proves more predictive than the majority

It is rare for a Supreme Court dissenting opinion to prove so quickly and so precisely prophetic as Justice Kavanaugh's in this case. Within just a few days, his prediction that Trump could rebuild the bulk of his tariff policy through other legal means was confirmed with almost unsettling precision.

This situation raises a fundamental question about the real reach of Supreme Court rulings in a context where the executive branch has a legal arsenal broad enough to work around almost any one-off limitation imposed by the judiciary.

A lesson in humility for defenders of the rule of law

This sequence should prompt a measure of humility among everyone, myself included, who initially hailed the February 20 ruling as a decisive victory of the rule of law against tariff arbitrariness. The more nuanced reality is that constitutional checks and balances do work, but with a slowness and porousness that considerably limit their immediate effectiveness against an executive branch determined to reach its goals by every legal means available.

It is this lesson in institutional humility, more than the fleeting satisfaction of a surface-level legal victory, that should guide our collective reading of this turbulent trade sequence.

Why this tariff battle goes beyond the economic numbers

A test of institutional resilience against an expansive executive

Beyond growth figures, gold prices or dollar fluctuations, this sequence is above all a full-scale test of American institutions' resilience against an executive branch determined to continually push the limits of its constitutional power. So far, the outcome of this test clearly tilts in the executive's favor, despite the technical legal victory won in February.

This dynamic should alarm people well beyond American economic and legal circles alone, because it illustrates the structural fragility of checks-and-balances mechanisms against an administration with nearly unlimited legal resources to work around every legal obstacle it encounters.

A vigilance that must stay constant, not one-off

The most important lesson from this affair, for Western observers as much as for American citizens themselves, is that democratic vigilance can never let up after a single legal victory, however resounding it may appear on the surface. Every successful challenge to an abuse of executive power must be followed by continued monitoring for attempts to work around it, as seen here with stunning speed.

It is this constant, ever-present vigilance, rather than the one-off satisfaction of a favorable ruling, that constitutes the real long-term safeguard against the gradual erosion of American constitutional checks and balances.

What this battle reveals about Washington's international credibility

Trading partners learning to live with instability

Major trading partners of the United States, from Canada to Japan to the European Union, have already learned over several years to live with the Trump administration's tariff unpredictability. This legal sequence merely confirms, in the eyes of foreign chancelleries, that American trade commitments remain subject to political and legal volatility that is hard to anticipate over the medium term.

This perception of chronic instability is pushing several allied governments to accelerate the diversification of their trade partnerships, a trend that, paradoxically, could weaken over time the very American economic influence these tariffs were supposed to strengthen.

A worrying signal sent to authoritarian regimes

Even more concerning, the American executive's ability to work around a major court ruling within hours sends an ambiguous signal to authoritarian regimes closely watching the strength of Western institutions. When Beijing or Moscow observe that even the highest American court struggles to durably contain the executive branch, it feeds their own narrative about the supposed fragility of liberal democracies compared to centralized regimes.

It is a cruel paradox: at the very moment the West needs to project an image of institutional solidity against China, Russia and Iran, this American tariff sequence instead offers an unintentional demonstration of just how porous its own constitutional guardrails can be.

Conclusion: a Pyrrhic victory for the rule of law

Three months later: little change, a lot of noise

With several months' hindsight, the outcome of this legal and political sequence is clear: the Supreme Court did strike down a specific legal tool used by Donald Trump to impose his tariffs, but the administration immediately rebuilt a tariff regime of nearly equivalent scope by relying on other statutes. The average effective rate of American tariffs, according to Goldman Sachs analysts, has changed only marginally compared to projections made before the ruling.

This de facto continuity, despite the surface-level legal rupture, perfectly illustrates the structural limits of judicial power against a determined and legally well-prepared executive branch, one equipped with a legal arsenal broad enough to work around almost any unfavorable court ruling.

What to take away going forward

This affair should serve as a warning to anyone hoping American courts alone can contain executive overreach on trade. Only clear, determined legislative action by Congress, firmly reclaiming its constitutional authority over taxation, could truly end this chronic tariff instability weighing on the American economy and its international trading partners.

Until this hypothetical legislative reassertion happens, businesses, investors and America's trading partners will have to keep living with tariff uncertainty that has, in effect, become the new structural norm of American trade policy.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist

Columnist's transparency note

Who I am and my acknowledged biases

I write this commentary as a columnist convinced that the West, despite its institutional flaws, must remain the central pillar of the international order against authoritarian regimes. This conviction does not stop me from taking a critical view of the sometimes erratic tariff methods of the Trump administration, which I nonetheless consider a necessary evil in the current geopolitical context.

I am not a trained constitutional lawyer, and my analysis of the technical scope of the Learning Resources ruling relies on the interpretations of legal experts and specialized analysts rather than on my own in-depth legal expertise.

What I don't know, and my method

I cannot predict with certainty whether new legal challenges against the section 122 tariff will succeed, nor how American tariff policy will evolve after the 150-day deadline set by that law expires.

My method relies on systematically cross-referencing primary legal sources, notably the text of the Supreme Court's ruling, with specialized journalistic and financial sources to analyze the economic and political repercussions of this decision.

Sources

Primary sources

Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump — Opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States, February 20, 2026

Trump tariffs derailed: What it means for stocks, trade, gold and dollar — Business Standard, July 3, 2026

Supreme Court ruling shifts US tariff power to Trade Representative Jamieson Greer — KuCoin News, July 3, 2026

Secondary sources

US Trade Rep Greer says tariff policy 'hasn't changed' — ABC News, February 22, 2026

Gold rises as dollar falls on US Supreme Court tariff verdict — Reuters, February 23, 2026

Brookings experts on the Supreme Court's tariff decision — Brookings Institution, February 24, 2026

A breakdown of the court's tariff decision — SCOTUSblog, February 20, 2026