Donald Trump’s 15% Global Tariff: How Did The Courts Rule And What Changed Overnight?

Former US president Donald Trump’s plan to expand a global tariff programme provoked a decisive response from the judiciary this week: the United States Supreme Court issued a 6–3 judgment that rejected the administration’s use of emergency authority to impose broad, economy-wide levies.

The ruling, handed down on 20 February 2026, held that the legal basis invoked for the earlier tariffs exceeded presidential emergency powers. This set the stage for immediate legal and trade fallout.

Within 24 hours of the judgment, the administration moved to preserve tariffs by invoking alternative statutory powers and announced a 15% global levy. This move has drawn fresh questions over legality, refund liability and international reaction. What legal routes remain for affected companies and trading partners?

What Exactly Did The Supreme Court Decide And Why?

The Court’s 6–3 majority concluded that the emergency statute previously relied upon did not authorise the sweeping, economy-wide tariffs the administration had imposed without explicit congressional authorisation. The opinion emphasised the separation of powers and required clearer legislative direction for measures of this magnitude.

The decision effectively invalidated tariffs instituted under that emergency statute, though it did not itself determine the scale of any refunds or restitution to importers, an issue now expected to spawn prolonged litigation. The ruling was broadly welcomed by retail and manufacturing sectors that argued the tariffs had raised input costs and consumer prices.

How Is The Administration Seeking To Keep Tariffs In Place And Is That Legal?

In direct response, the administration invoked provisions of the Trade Act of 1974, which permits temporary measures of up to 15% to address “fundamental international payments problems” and issued a new order raising the global tariff to 15% (from an initial 10%). That statute allows a president to impose duties for a limited period (generally up to 150 days) while consulting Congress and negotiating remedies; it is not a permanent substitute for congressional legislation.

Trade and constitutional experts say the Trade Act route is legally available but narrower in scope than the emergency powers the Court struck down, and it may invite its own challenges if applied beyond statutory limits or without required findings and procedures. Additionally, other statutes, including Section 232 (national security) and targeted antidumping/safeguard measures, remain options but carry higher evidentiary burdens.

Also Read - India-France Tax Treaty May Hit P-Note Flows

What Legal Recourse Do Firms And Governments Have After The 6–3 Verdict?

Affected importers, industry groups and foreign governments have several potential remedies. Corporations can pursue administrative claims for refunds before the US Customs and Border Protection; where refunds are denied, they can litigate in federal courts. Governments aggrieved by the tariff increase may lodge disputes at the World Trade Organisation or negotiate bilateral remedies, and several trading partners have publicly warned against unilateral hikes.

Legal commentators also note that high-profile litigators who prevailed in the Supreme Court case have signalled continued judicial avenues: they argue that unless Congress explicitly authorises broad tariffs, further executive attempts may be subject to similar constitutional restraints. Neal Katyal, the lead attorney in the case, has publicly argued that meaningful tariff policy requires congressional buy-in rather than unilateral executive action.

Sources:

Times of India

The Guardian