The justices have closed one door of trade policy while leaving an entire corridor wide open
By Peter Navarro | Financial Times | February 23, 2026
Every so often, what looks like a defeat proves to be a strategic win. The Supreme Court’s ruling on US President Donald Trump’s tariffs is one of those moments.
On its face, the ruling looks like a knockout punch. In a 6-3 decision, the court held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act’s authorisation to “regulate importation” does not include the power to impose tariffs. Because tariffs raise revenue, the majority concluded, they are in effect taxes — and taxes require explicit congressional approval.
But look carefully at what the court actually did. It ruled that the IEEPA does not authorise tariffs. That’s all.
The court did not declare tariffs unconstitutional. It did not strike down section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act. It did not invalidate section 301 of the Trade Act. It did not question the use of sections 122, 201 or 338. It did not revive the “nondelegation” doctrine. And only three justices relied on the “major-questions” doctrine, meaning the court created no sweeping precedent limiting presidential trade authority.
In fact, even as the court struck down the IEEPA tariffs, it acknowledged that the president retains broad and powerful authority under numerous other statutes to impose tariffs.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s dissent offered a rigorous and historically grounded defence of presidential tariff power. He emphasised the historical understanding that tariffs are a traditional form of regulating imports. He also catalogued the full range of statutory authorities that remain fully intact.
President Trump is already relying on many of them: section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 to impose national-security tariffs on products such as steel and aluminium, and — potentially — on critical minerals; section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to impose country-specific tariffs in response to unfair trade practices — as with China; section 201 safeguard measures, used in his first term to impose tariffs on solar panels and washing machines, with the solar protections still in place; and section 122, just invoked to implement a temporary global surcharge.
Kavanaugh went further, underscoring that additional tools remain available — including section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, which authorises retaliation against discriminatory foreign trade practices. In short, the court closed one door while leaving an entire corridor of tariff authority wide open.
Moreover, by narrowing the legal dispute in this case to the IEEPA alone, the court clarified the legal landscape. The authority under those other statutes is not in doubt. It is written clearly into law. That clarity will significantly strengthen the president’s tariff hand.