25 February 2026

When President Trump takes the podium to address a joint session of Congress for his State of the Union address today, he will be standing on shakier ground than at any other point in his presidency. Public opinion on his most popular policy, immigration, has flipped from 50% approving a year ago to 58% disapproving today. On the economy, 57% disapprove of President Trump’s actions. His approval rating is currently at 38%.

But, perhaps most notably, his signature emergency-powers tariffs were roundly rejected by the Supreme Court on Friday. The president has already announced a new baseline tariff on all countries under Section 122 of the United States code for up to 150 days. This is different to the Liberation Day tariffs because it is time limited. The administration has also said they will pursue additional tariffs under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, but this can only be done after an investigation. These limitations are central to the decision put forward by the court.

At its core, the Supreme Court’s tariff decision is about the separation of powers. Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority opinion establishes the major questions doctrine, alluded to in Supreme Court opinions in the 1980s-1990s and formalised in the 2022 ruling West Virginia v. EPA, as an era-defining court precedent. The major questions doctrine means that where there is a question regarding an action by the executive branch that would have significant and broad effects, the language to confer that power must meet a higher standard than a normal test before the court. It must be clear and unambiguous. This doctrine was used to strike down multiple Biden-era initiatives such as his student loan forgiveness program (Biden v. Nebraska) or mandatory vaccination policies in workplaces (National Federation of Independent Business v. OSHA).

Roberts uses this decision to demonstrate how a vague application of the terms in IEEPA to “regulate…importation” cannot justify an implied delegation of Congressional power to impose tariffs. In a concurring opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch presented the most explicit explanation of the major questions doctrine and its application to date, which is likely to be cited in numerous future applications of the doctrine.

The Supreme Court is pushing back on the Trump 2.0 “move fast and break things” approach and, as midterms approach and polling flounders, many anticipate more Republicans will publicly break from President Trump.

As the power of the executive branch declines from what it was at “peak Trump," expect to see an even more defiant, aggressive and lengthy address from the president as he speaks to Congress, the Supreme Court and the American public at one time about how he, and only he, can make America great again.

President Trump's State of the Union address will begin at 9:00pm EST, 1:00pm AEDT.

Lead photo by Drew Angerer via Getty.

"When Congress grants the power to impose tariffs, it does so clearly and with careful constraints. It did neither here."

Chief Justice John Roberts in the majority opinion overturning IEEPA tariffs  |  20 February 2026

Recent content from us

In the news

By the numbers

How do the new Section 122 tariffs compare to IEEPA tariffs?

Sources: White House Executive Order, New York Times
NB: Belarus, Russia, North Korea and Cuba were exempted from the IEEPA tariffs. It is unclear whether Section 122 tariffs apply to them.

On Friday, 20 February 2026, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that President Trump cannot use the International Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to unilaterally impose tariffs. This ruling nullified all tariffs imposed under IEEPA, including the Liberation Day reciprocal tariffs and the fentanyl-related tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China.

In response, the Trump administration swiftly invoked Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to initially impose a 10% tariff on almost all imports (with sectoral carve-outs), which President Trump increased to 15%. Section 122 grants the president authority to temporarily impose tariffs of up to 15% for 150 days to address balance of payments problems, however, these tariffs cannot be targeted at specific countries.

The ruling leaves several significant issues unresolved. Importers who have paid an estimated US$175 billion in duties under IEEPA tariffs over the past nine months will want to know whether they will be refunded, and how quickly. (The majority opinion made no mention of how this could be handled). Countries who made concessions to the United States and negotiated lower tariff rates through recent trade deals have been told by the Trump administration to stand by their commitments. For countries still negotiating deals with the Trump administration, the calculus has shifted considerably without Trump’s tariff leverage. Countries like Australia, who received the lowest Liberation Day tariff rate of 10%, now face a higher 15% tariff, and are left worse off.

Looking ahead, Trump’s attention will turn to what other legal authorities he can draw on to reimpose targeted, country-specific tariffs — more developments are likely over the coming weeks and months.

Manage your email preferences  |  Forward this email to a friend

United States Studies Centre
Institute Building (H03)
University of Sydney NSW 2006

​www.ussc.edu.au  |  us-studies@sydney.edu.au