FACT-CHECK: "The Court Will Back Me" — the Tariff Setback That Shattered the Trump Illusion

Introduction: When Certainty Shatters on the Court's Marble

A prophecy that the facts contradicted

For months, Donald Trump cultivated a public conviction: his Supreme Court, composed in majority of justices he had himself appointed, would serve as his institutional shield. This certainty, displayed with presidential nonchalance, rested less on rigorous legal analysis than on a political calculation based on personal loyalty. On February 20, 2026, this illusion shattered with a crash.

In Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down a historic decision by 6 votes to 3: the tariffs imposed by Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act — the IEEPA, a 1977 law — do not fall within the powers Congress delegated to the president. Concrete translation: these tariffs, presented as the crown jewel of Trump's economic policy, were invalidated by an improbable coalition of three conservatives and three liberals.

Three Trump appointees, two turn against him

The number that counts reads as follows: Trump appointed three justices to the Supreme Court during his first term — Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, and Brett Kavanaugh. Two of the three — Gorsuch and Barrett — joined the majority against him. Only Kavanaugh voted in his favor, alongside ultraconservatives Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. The Court did not take the side of its creator; it took the side of the Constitution.

This result constitutes a stinging defeat not only on the legal front but also on the narrative one. It destroys the myth of a Supreme Court transformed into an instrument of Trump's agenda. This fact-check disentangles truth from fiction in this case, relying on primary sources drawn directly from the decision and its immediate aftermath.

The 6-3 Vote: Anatomy of an Unprecedented Conservative Fracture

A coalition nobody anticipated

In the recent history of the Roberts Court, major decisions followed the ideological fault line almost mechanically: six conservatives on one side, three liberals on the other. The IEEPA tariff case broke that mold. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the main opinion, joined by Gorsuch, Barrett, and the three liberal justices — Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson. It is a coalition analysts describe as historically rare.

On the dissent side, the lineup was equally telling: Kavanaugh authored the main dissent, 63 pages long — the longest in the entire case — joined by Thomas and Alito. These three justices argued that the IEEPA did indeed confer on the president the power to impose tariffs in a national emergency. Their thesis: the word "regulate" in the law encompasses the power to tax. The majority rejected this argument with surgical clarity.

What Roberts actually wrote

Justice Roberts grounded his decision on a rigorous textual reading of the IEEPA. The statute's central phrase — "regulate … importation" — contains no reference to tariffs or customs duties. Roberts invoked Gibbons v. Ogden to recall that tariffs constitute "a branch of the revenue power," which belongs to Article I of the Constitution — meaning Congress, not the executive. The final holding is unequivocal: "IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs."

Roberts also rejected the notion of an exception to the reasoning: "There is no major questions exception to the major questions doctrine." This doubly-layered sentence means the administration cannot create ad hoc exceptions to a constitutional principle by invoking foreign affairs or emergency. The Constitution provides no free zone for the executive.

The Gorsuch Opinion: 46 Pages Against Everyone

A concurrence that surpasses the main opinion

Justice Neil Gorsuch joined Roberts' opinion in full, but also authored a separate concurrence of 46 pages — more than twice the length of the main opinion, which runs only 21. This choice is unusual and deliberate. Gorsuch wanted to respond point by point to each of his colleagues: the conservative dissenters who backed Trump, Justice Barrett who joined the majority but not his theoretical framework, and the three liberals who voted with him without adopting his doctrine.

This text is already cited as one of the session's most significant jurisprudential contributions. Harvard Professor Jack Goldsmith described it as a clear signal that the Court will henceforth consider with skepticism any outsized delegation of power to the executive, whether the president is a Republican or a Democrat. The Gorsuch opinion is neither pro-Trump nor anti-Trump: it is pro-Constitution.

Non-delegation and historical consistency, according to Gorsuch

Gorsuch's central argument rests on the major questions doctrine combined with non-delegation theory: Congress cannot delegate its legislative powers to the executive in a vague and unlimited manner. Gorsuch recalled that Americans fought the Revolution precisely because they refused to let an executive — whether the King or even Parliament — tax them without the consent of their elected representatives. This conviction was then codified in the Constitution, Article I.

Gorsuch also flayed his dissenting colleagues — Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh — who had used the major questions doctrine to invalidate Biden's policies (student loan cancellation, eviction moratorium, vaccine mandate) but were now refusing to apply it to Trump. His formulation has since become famous: "It's hard not to wonder how this fits with some of our existing major questions precedents." This is not judicial politeness. It is an act of accusation.

The Major Questions Doctrine: A Double-Edged Weapon

A doctrine born under Biden, turned against Trump

The major questions doctrine stipulates that when the executive claims to exercise a power of considerable scope over major economic or political questions, it must be able to show that Congress clearly delegated that power. This principle is not new, but the Roberts Court formalized and hardened it under Biden to invalidate several of his flagship programs.

In 2023, the Court invalidated Biden's student loan cancellation plan relying on this doctrine: the word "modify" in the relevant statute did not mean "erase hundreds of billions in debt." The same year, the doctrine had served to limit the EPA's climate powers. Conservatives rejoiced. These same conservatives — Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh — then refused to apply the doctrine to their own president. This reversal is what Gorsuch exposed without restraint.

Liberals in an uncomfortable position

The situation was also delicate for the three liberal justices. Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson had, throughout the Biden period, criticized the major questions doctrine as an arbitrary judicial creation, a "get out-of-text-free card" in Kagan's words. But in 2026, they voted with the majority to invalidate Trump's tariffs — without formally adopting the doctrine. Kagan said so explicitly in her 7-page concurrence: ordinary tools of textual interpretation suffice, without need for the doctrine.

Gorsuch did not fail to note it: the former critics of the doctrine no longer contest it in this specific case. This liberal silence in the face of a doctrine they had combated reveals the politically asymmetric character of these legal debates. The major questions doctrine is now a constitutional reality — but its scope of application remains disputed among the nine justices.

Barrett vs. Gorsuch: The Doctrinal Debate Behind the Majority

Two conservatives, two incompatible visions

Amy Coney Barrett, who voted with the majority against Trump's tariffs, nonetheless authored her own 4-page concurrence — brief but incisive. She directly challenges Gorsuch's conception: for Barrett, the major questions doctrine is a common-sense textual principle, a way of reading statutes according to their most natural meaning, and not a rigid constitutional canon anchored in the separation of powers.

Gorsuch treats the doctrine as a substantive canon — a rule that loads the presumption in favor of Congress every time the executive claims exceptional power. Barrett accuses him of constructing a "straw man" and risking slipping from interpretation into judicial activism. She writes that his approach risks "spilling over from interpretation into policymaking."

Consequences for the doctrine's future

This disagreement between Gorsuch and Barrett is not purely academic. According to analysis by Professor Stephanie Barclay, a former Gorsuch clerk at Georgetown Law, this internal majority debate signals that all nine justices are now engaging on the doctrine's foundations — even if they do not agree on its precise nature. The Court is theorizing in real time a major constitutional doctrine.

Professor Steve Vladeck, a CNN Supreme Court analyst and Georgetown professor, estimated that the divisions among Republican appointees over the doctrine's scope will have greater implications for future presidents than for the remainder of Trump's term. This is not a one-day decision: it is the beginning of a structural rebalancing among the branches.

Kavanaugh, Thomas, Alito: The Pro-Trump Dissent Dissected

The foreign policy and national emergency argument

Brett Kavanaugh, in his 63-page main dissent — the longest in the entire case — articulated the most complete defense of the Trump position. His central argument: the major questions doctrine has never applied in the context of foreign policy and international trade. Foreign affairs are a domain where the president has particular constitutional latitude, and it would be wrong to impose a heightened standard of legislative clarity there.

Kavanaugh also argued that the history of American international trade — particularly the tariffs imposed under Nixon via the statute preceding the IEEPA — demonstrated that presidents had traditionally exercised this type of power without Congress explicitly contesting it. For him, reading "regulate importation" as not including tariffs is an artificial contortion of the statutory text.

Clarence Thomas and the historical reading

Clarence Thomas produced a separate 18-page dissent grounded in constitutional history. His thesis: the historical practice of delegating tariff power to the president dates back to the origins of the Republic and supports a broad interpretation of the IEEPA. Thomas, faithful to his originalism, sought to anchor the decision in tradition, not in the major questions doctrine — which he views as a relatively recent mechanism.

Kavanaugh also numerically warned of the practical consequences of the decision: the federal government could be forced to reimburse billions of dollars in collected tariffs, a process he described as likely to be an operational "mess," particularly because the question of reimbursement to importers who passed costs on to consumers remains legally unresolved.

Trump Against Barrett and Gorsuch: Personal Attacks in Analysis

"An embarrassment to their families": presidential rhetoric

On February 20, 2026, a few hours after the decision, Trump convened a 45-minute press conference at the White House. His words were carefully documented. On Barrett and Gorsuch, he declared: "I think it's an embarrassment to their families." On his decision to appoint them, he added: "I don't want to say I regret nominating them. I think their decision was terrible."

Trump further claimed that the Court had been influenced by "foreign interests" and a "political movement smaller than most people realize." These vague, unsubstantiated accusations were aimed at discrediting the majority without offering a single legal argument. He simultaneously praised Kavanaugh for his "genius" and "great talent," and lauded Thomas and Alito for their "love of country."

Expected loyalty against constitutional independence

These attacks reveal a fundamentally erroneous conception of the role of Supreme Court justices. Federal judges are appointed for life precisely to protect them from political pressure, including from the president who appointed them. The fact that Gorsuch and Barrett voted against Trump does not constitute a betrayal: it is a demonstration that the nomination system functions as the Founding Fathers intended.

It is worth recalling that Trump had also criticized Chief Justice Roberts — appointed by George W. Bush — during his first term, notably on decisions related to Obamacare. This pattern of personal attacks against justices who do not rule in his favor is consistent. It reflects a misunderstanding — or a deliberate refusal to understand — the fundamental principle of separation of powers.

FACT-CHECK — Claim No. 1: "The Conservative Court Will Always Support Trump"

Verdict: FALSE — nuanced but firmly false

The claim that the conservative-majority Supreme Court would systematically support Trump is contradicted by the facts. The February 20, 2026 vote is the most striking counterexample: three of the six conservative justices — Roberts, Gorsuch, Barrett — voted against the president's central policy. The Court had already, during Trump's first term, issued decisions unfavorable to the president on several points.

It is accurate that the Roberts Court has, overall, leaned toward conservative positions on issues such as abortion (Dobbs, 2022), gun rights (Bruen, 2022), and presidential immunity (2024). But these decisions are motivated by jurisprudential principles — originalism, textualism — and not by personal loyalty to Trump. The Court is not a MAGA instrument. That is what the February 2026 vote demonstrates.

The fundamental distinction: ideology vs. loyalty

Conservative justices share certain ideological positions with Trump on social questions. But conservative constitutional ideology — notably the doctrine of textualism and the defense of congressional prerogatives — can turn against a Republican president just as easily as against a Democrat. Gorsuch is the perfect example: it is precisely his rigorous constitutional conservatism that led him to vote against Trump.

Trump's illusion rested on a confusion between ideology and personal loyalty. The justices he appointed were grateful upon taking their oaths. They had no constitutional obligation — nor any institutional interest — to remain grateful for the rest of their lives. The Constitution provides exactly for this: independent, irremovable justices whose mission is to apply the law, not to thank their nominator.

FACT-CHECK — Claim No. 2: "The IEEPA Tariffs Were Legal"

Verdict: FALSE according to the Court, confirmed by the statutory text

The Trump administration argued that the IEEPA, the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, empowered the president to impose tariffs on all trading partners by invoking a national emergency. This thesis was rejected 6-3. The statutory text never mentions the words "tariffs" or "customs duties." It refers to the power to "regulate importations," a phrase the Court declined to interpret as including the power of taxation.

Roberts demonstrated that in fifty years of the IEEPA's existence, no president before Trump had ever invoked this law to impose tariffs. This historical silence is, for the majority, a "telling indicator" that Congress had not intended to delegate this power. Trump's argument rested on the interpretation of two words in the statute, separated by sixteen other words — a textual basis the Court found insufficient for an economic measure of such magnitude.

The question of $134 billion

The invalidated tariffs represented an economic burden estimated at $134 billion for American consumers, according to the analyses cited in the decision's findings. The ruling opens the door to reimbursement claims by importers who paid these duties — although whether importers who passed the cost on to their customers can themselves claim reimbursement remains a legally open question, as Kavanaugh noted in his dissent.

Trump immediately announced after the decision that he would seek other legal bases for imposing tariffs, notably through other trade laws than the IEEPA. This announcement shows that the decision does not end Trump's tariff policy, but forces him to operate within a legislative framework clearly delimited by Congress — which was precisely the Court's objective.

FACT-CHECK — Claim No. 3: "The Court Treats Biden and Trump Differently"

Verdict: PARTIALLY TRUE — but the conclusions are inverted

This claim, often articulated by Trump supporters to criticize the majority, contains a kernel of truth but leads to an erroneous conclusion. It is accurate that the major questions doctrine was applied primarily against Biden's policies during the preceding Roberts term — student loans, vaccine mandates, EPA environmental regulations. It is precisely for this reason that Gorsuch, in his 46-page concurrence, noted the discomfort of the liberals in voting with him.

But the correct conclusion to draw from this observation is the opposite of what Trump advances. If the liberals had criticized the doctrine under Biden before seeing it used against Trump, that proves the doctrine applies regardless of the party in power — exactly what Gorsuch defends. Predictability and universality are the hallmarks of a true constitutional principle, not a partisan tool.

The double-standard accusation reversed

Gorsuch pointed out the double standard in the other direction: Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh, who had embraced the major questions doctrine to invalidate Biden's policies, suddenly discovered it did not apply to Trump's tariffs. Gorsuch asked them to explain how their current votes reconciled with their previous votes in cases like West Virginia v. EPA (2022). The absence of a satisfying answer in the dissents reinforces the majority's position.

Professor Ilya Somin was cited in the legal press for concluding that the dissenters were attempting to create an "arbitrary exception" to the major questions doctrine for tariffs, without coherent doctrinal justification. This finding neutralizes the double-standard accusation formulated by Trump and his allies: it is precisely the majority that applies the rule consistently.

Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump: The Procedural Background

A rapid judicial journey to the Supreme Court

The case Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump was consolidated with Trump v. V.O.S. Selections. The plaintiffs — importing companies whose costs had exploded because of the tariffs — had brought suit in lower courts. The Court of International Trade refused to transfer the case and granted a preliminary injunction. The Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, confirmed on appeal that the IEEPA did not grant the president the power to impose tariffs "unlimited in their scope, amount, and duration."

The Supreme Court granted certiorari and consolidated the cases. The final decision, handed down on February 20, 2026, confirmed the lower courts' findings while developing a more elaborate doctrinal framework, particularly around the major questions doctrine. The entire case, from the first injunctions to the final decision, testifies to a functional and independent judicial system — capable of putting the brakes on an executive branch that overreaches its authority.

The immediate practical implications

The Court's decision had immediate effects on American trade policy. Trump confirmed at his press conference that he would seek other legal bases for tariffs, notably announcing an additional global 10% tax — this time grounded in distinct legislative authorities specified by Kavanaugh in his dissent. Democratic governors, notably Gavin Newsom and J.B. Pritzker, demanded reimbursements totaling $1,700 per American family, citing a total cost exceeding $231 billion to households.

The International Reaction and Geopolitical Consequences

A signal sent to allies and adversaries

The Supreme Court's decision was observed closely by America's trading partners, notably European and Asian allies who had suffered the effects of the IEEPA tariffs. The demonstration that American institutions can constrain even a populist president sent a positive signal about the reliability of the rule of law in the United States. For the West's allies, the existence of effective judicial oversight mechanisms remains an essential factor in American credibility on the international stage.

On the adversaries' side — China, Russia, Iran — the decision may have been interpreted as a weakening of the American president. But this short-term reading is inverted by reality: a functional rule of law is a sign of institutional strength, not weakness. Authoritarian regimes have no Supreme Court capable of saying no to their leader. This capacity for internal resistance is precisely what differentiates liberal democracies from autocracies.

Trump and the West: the necessary evil facing its own limits

Trump remains an ambivalent figure in the Western landscape. On certain issues — pressure on NATO allies, firmness toward China, support for certain European rearmament dynamics — he has served interests objectively useful to the West. But his relationship with democratic institutions — attacks against independent judges, refusal to accept the constitutional limits of his power — constitutes a structural threat that his allies cannot indefinitely ignore.

What This Episode Changes for American Constitutional Jurisprudence

A new milestone for the major questions doctrine

The Learning Resources case now constitutes a major jurisprudential milestone. For the first time, the major questions doctrine was applied not to a federal regulatory agency, but directly to the president's prerogative in foreign and trade policy. This extension of the doctrine's application is significant: it signals that even the most politically central presidential actions must find clear legislative grounding.

Conservative legal commentator Michael Barone described this case as potentially the most important of the Roberts Court of the century, echoing the analysis of anti-Trump jurist David French in the New York Times. The Gorsuch opinion, in particular, is already cited as a foundational document for the reaffirmation of Congress's role against an expansionist executive — regardless of the political color of the president involved.

Non-delegation as a constitutional horizon

By touching on non-delegation theory — the idea that Congress cannot delegate its legislative powers without sufficient constraints — Gorsuch reopened a doctrinal debate the Court had largely avoided for decades. Should this theory affirm itself in future decisions, it could call into question decades of vast regulatory power delegations to federal agencies and the executive. This debate goes beyond Trump: it concerns the constitutional architecture of the American state.

Conclusion: The Shattered Illusion and Lasting Lessons

What the facts allow us to establish

This fact-check allows us to clearly establish several truths. First: the conservative-majority Supreme Court does not systematically support Trump, and the February 20, 2026 decision is the clearest demonstration of this. Second: the IEEPA tariffs exceeded the powers granted by the statute to the president, a conclusion grounded in the statute's own text and confirmed 6-3. Third: Gorsuch, in his 46 pages, produced not an act of hostility toward Trump, but a rigorous defense of constitutional consistency.

Fourth, and perhaps most important for the future: Trump's personal attacks against his own nominees reveal a conception of power incompatible with the foundations of liberal democracy. A president does not appoint justices for them to be grateful for life. He appoints justices to apply the Constitution. When they do exactly that — even against him — it is the system working, not a betrayal.

The West and its safeguards

The Learning Resources v. Trump decision did not weaken the United States. It made them, for a moment, more reliable. It reminded the entire world that even the most combative president in recent decades cannot circumvent the Constitution with impunity. That is what the West needs right now: institutions that hold. Not institutions committed to one man. Institutions committed to principles. The Supreme Court, on February 20, 2026, was faithful to that ideal. Whether Trump understands it or not, history will record that date as a moment when the safeguards held.

Signed Maxime Marquette, columnist

Sources

Primary sources

Supreme Court of the United States — Official Opinion, Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, 24-1287 — February 20, 2026

SCOTUSblog — Detailed analysis of the vote and opinions in the tariff case — February 20, 2026

SCOTUSblog — Supreme Court strikes down tariffs, summary of the 6-3 decision — February 20, 2026

Secondary sources

CNN — Why the Court's conservatives voted against Trump after presenting a united front against Biden — February 22, 2026

The Hill — Trump calls Barrett and Gorsuch decision "an embarrassment to their families" — February 20, 2026

The Atlantic — The Gorsuch concurrence on tariffs is a warning — February 25, 2026

Reason Magazine — Gorsuch blasts Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh in his tariff concurrence — February 20, 2026

NBC News — In the tariff case, justices debate the different treatment of Biden and Trump — February 21, 2026