On March 26, 2026, former President Donald Trump publicly criticized Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett—both his appointees—after they joined a 6-3 majority ruling that declared his reciprocal tariffs illegal under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) [1]. Trump expressed his disappointment at the National Republican Congressional Committee dinner, stating that Gorsuch and Barrett 'sicken me' and are 'bad for our country,' referencing their votes in the case Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump [1]. The Supreme Court's decision, issued on February 20, determined that the president does not have unilateral authority to impose tariffs on imports from most countries under IEEPA, rejecting Trump's interpretation of the law [1]. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, emphasized that the statute's wording did not support such broad presidential powers [1].
The ruling has significant financial implications, as it prevents the U.S. government from exempting itself from refunding up to $165 billion in tariffs paid by American importers under IEEPA [1]. Trump lamented that the Supreme Court's decision would cost the country 'hundreds of billions of dollars,' underscoring the scale of the fiscal impact [1]. In response to the ruling, the Trump administration sought alternative measures to replace lost tariff revenue. On February 20, Trump invoked Section 122 of the Trade Act to impose global tariffs of 10% on imports, though these duties are temporary and last only 150 days unless extended by Congress [1].
Additionally, the office of U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer initiated trade investigations into nearly 80 countries and economies under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, targeting nations such as China, Japan, India, Mexico, and the European Union for alleged unfair trade practices [1]. Section 301 provides the U.S. with authority to impose tariffs on imports from countries found to violate fair trade standards [1].
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, another Trump appointee, dissented along with Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, highlighting a split among conservative justices regarding the scope of presidential tariff powers [1].
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court's decision to invalidate Trump-era tariffs under IEEPA has triggered a major fiscal and political response, with Trump sharply criticizing his own appointees. The ruling mandates substantial refunds to American importers and has prompted new, albeit temporary, tariff measures and broad trade investigations. The market impact is high, given the scale of tariff refunds and ongoing uncertainty around U.S. trade policy.