admin
On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court delivered a stunning six-to-three decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, ruling that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the President to impose sweeping tariffs. Conservatives should be alarmed: this is not merely a narrow technical ruling, it undercuts a tool the White House has used to protect American industry and push back against unfair trade. The Court’s judgment will reshape the balance of power over trade policy and leave everyday Americans to pay the price.
President Trump reacted with predictable fury, calling the ruling “deeply disappointing” and “a disgrace” while telling governors he has a backup plan to defend American workers and factories. His visceral response reflected what millions of voters already feel — that the elites in Washington, whether on the bench or in Congress, too often put globalist interests ahead of American prosperity. The president pledged to keep fighting for leverage against cheating trading partners.
The Court’s majority leaned on the major questions doctrine and a strict reading of Article I, insisting that tariff power is squarely within Congress’s remit and that IEEPA does not clearly delegate that authority to the executive. That legal theory may satisfy some academics, but it also reads like a convenient reset button for judges who prefer to second-guess the national interest from the marble halls of the capital. If the Constitution mattered chiefly to restrain foreign predators who steal American jobs, this decision makes it harder for any president to respond swiftly.
What stings conservatives most is the lineup of justices who joined the majority: Chief Justice Roberts and two Trump appointees, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, sided with the three liberal justices to hobble presidential authority. Millions of voters who cheered the confirmations of those jurists will rightly feel betrayed by a vote that flouted the urgency of protecting American manufacturing and the workers who depend on it. The dissenters — justices who warned of the practical harms of stripping this tool — were right to object.
The practical consequences are enormous and immediate: tens or even hundreds of billions of dollars in tariff collections are now at risk of refund claims, and the administration’s trade leverage is significantly weakened. Analysts and law firms warn of a fiscal and legal mess if refunds are demanded and of the loss of bargaining power that had forced trading partners to the table. This is not abstract lawyering; this is money out of the pockets of American taxpayers and leverage off the table in negotiations with rivals like China.
Make no mistake: the ruling only struck down the use of IEEPA for these tariffs, not the idea of tariffs themselves, and the administration has already signaled it will pursue other statutory routes to rebuild its trade posture. Congress and the White House can still craft targeted authorities that withstand judicial scrutiny, but that requires raw political will — something too rare in today’s Washington. Conservatives must press lawmakers to return power to the people who pay the price: American workers and families.
This fight is far from over, and conservative media and grassroots activists must make clear that judicial decisions have consequences at the dinner table and on factory floors. Fox’s legal team and others are already lining up analysis of the ruling, but analysis is not a substitute for action; Republicans in Congress should move swiftly to legislate real trade authority that defends Americans without surrendering constitutional limits. The courts have spoken, but the people and their elected representatives still have the last say if conservatives have the backbone to seize it.
