Supreme Court annuls global tariffs, a powerful blow to the administration ahead of foreign summits

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) delivered a powerful blow to trade policy, ruling by a vote of 6 to 3, that that the executive branch violated the constitutional separation of powers. In an exceptionally significant collaboration, conservative justices joined forces with the liberal minority to curb the abuse of power. The court deemed the imposition of tariffs based on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to be absolutely unconstitutional. The president attempted to sanction 20-percent tariffs on the entire world this way, raising arguments about trade imbalances and the smuggling of raw materials posing internal threats to citizens. Constitutional experts assess the verdict as fundamental protection of legislative prerogatives. 175 mld USD — estimated value of unlawfully collected tariff duties Since the beginning of its term in 2025, the Supreme Court has mostly sided with the federal administration in areas of employment restrictions or border policy. However, historically, IEEPA mechanisms have been used as precisely targeted sanctions against authoritarian or terrorism-sponsoring foreign regimes, not as a universal protectionist blockade aimed at the entire trade industry. The extraordinary dimension of the case lies in the fact that a powerful tariff-based barrier was overturned by a relatively modest company from Chicago. The initiator of the landmark lawsuit was Rick Woldenberg, the sixty-five-year-old president of the medium-sized enterprise Learning Resources, which produces toys. The man categorically opposed the incredible operational fees blocking supply chains. The success cleared the channel for more extensive "coast-to-coast" business. Earlier reports were corrected, now confirming that the New York-based VOS Selections, which supports these efforts, has been importing wines on a five-continent scale for over thirty-nine years. The vast legal operation mobilized the National Retail Federation, which is brutally demanding a seamless process for refunding multi-billion-dollar contributions to company capital. „To be very frank, it's a real mess.” — Itsunori Onodera Diplomatic schedules and political deadlines: February 20, 2026 — Announcement of the US Supreme Court ruling; March 31, 2026 — Beginning of the president's official visit to China; April 2, 2026 — Previously grandly planned Customs Liberation Day The secondary effects of the ruling are immediately paralyzing bilateral plans abroad. A confused Indian trade delegation hastily canceled its flight to Washington, requiring time to assess the drastically changed tax environment. The official assurance from the Japanese government resonated positively, reassuring the American market about maintaining the gigantic, over half-trillion-dollar trade loan package despite deep cabinet irritations. From an economic and prestige standpoint, the loss of a key weapon will strike directly during Donald Trump's unprecedented trip to Beijing, right in front of the obvious decision-making presence of Xi Jinping. While the US leader has threatened to tighten retaliatory sanctions in other ways, he lacks his previous image as a sovereign creator of import burdens. Vote distribution in the Supreme Court: Deeming tariffs illegal: 6, Supporting the president's authority: 3

Perspektywy mediów: Hails the verdict as a magnificent breakthrough providing relief to consumers and stability to trade agreements in contrast to the arbitrary whims of the White House. Condemns the ruling as an excessively legalistic attempt to paralyze the necessary renewal of the US manufacturing base and the loss of a defensive weapon for a strong-arm government.