The Supreme Court voted 6–3 to strike down tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, ruling in the case Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion, joined by Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Sonia Sotomayor. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.
Former Vice President Mike Pence moved quickly to welcome the decision, posting on X the same day the ruling was reported.
"Today's 6-3 ruling by the Supreme Court is a Victory for the American People and a Win for the Separation of Powers enshrined in the Constitution of the United States."
According to Breitbart, Pence's advocacy organization, Advancing American Freedom, had submitted amicus briefs in the case, making his response more than a bystander's commentary. He had institutional skin in this outcome.
The core constitutional question was straightforward: Does the president have authority under IEEPA to impose tariffs unilaterally, or does that power belong to Congress? The Court's majority, per Pence's characterization of the ruling, reaffirmed that the Constitution grants Congress, not the executive branch, the authority to levy taxes and tariffs.
That is a durable principle with roots older than any current trade dispute. The Founders placed the taxing and tariff power squarely in Article I, in the legislative branch, precisely because they wanted the people's direct representatives controlling the terms of taxation. The question was whether a post-World War II statute, the IEEPA, could serve as a vehicle to route around that design. Six justices said no.
Pence also argued that tariffs imposed under this mechanism were ultimately paid by American consumers and businesses, not by foreign governments, and that the ruling would bring relief to American families and companies. That argument, whatever one thinks of the underlying trade policy debate, reflects an honest accounting of how import duties actually function.
The three dissenters, Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh, did not leave the tariff question entirely closed. Justice Kavanaugh's dissent pointed toward a practical path forward, suggesting that future tariffs could potentially be pursued through other statutory authority, specifically:
That is a meaningful signal. Kavanaugh was not writing that tariffs are constitutionally prohibited or that trade protection as a policy objective is foreclosed. He was identifying the proper channels. If the administration wants to pursue tariff authority, those statutes represent the legislatively grounded path to do it.
The ruling does not end the trade policy conversation. It redirects it toward Congress, which is precisely where the Constitution placed it.
The story carries an undeniable political subtext. Pence and Trump parted ways in the aftermath of January 6, 2021, and Pence has since built Advancing American Freedom into an active policy organization, filing briefs and taking positions that have occasionally put him at odds with the current direction of the Republican Party. This ruling is one of those moments.
But it is worth separating the political dynamics from the constitutional substance. The separation of powers argument Pence is making is not a liberal position dressed in conservative language. It is a classically conservative position: executive power has limits, Congress controls the purse and the tariff schedule, and courts exist to enforce those limits when they are crossed. Those were conservative principles long before they became convenient for any particular faction.
The 6–3 breakdown is also notable. This was not a partisan split. Gorsuch and Barrett, both Trump appointees, joined the majority alongside the Court's three liberal justices. Roberts, another Republican appointee, wrote the opinion. The constitutional objection to IEEPA tariffs reached across the ideological spectrum of the Court.
The Trump administration has not commented publicly on the ruling, at least not in the source material available. That silence will not last. The administration built significant economic and political architecture around tariff authority, and a 6–3 Supreme Court ruling striking down the statutory basis for that authority demands a response.
Kavanaugh's dissent offers one: go back to Congress, use the statutes that have always existed for this purpose, and build tariff policy on firmer legal ground. Whether the administration treats that as an invitation or an obstacle will shape the next phase of this debate.
The Constitution did not change on February 20, 2026. The Court simply reminded everyone of what it already said.