Supreme Court voids Trump's tariffs
- The real news is older than “today”: on February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Trump’s IEEPA tariffs were unlawful. - The fresh development on May 5 is fallout — March’s U.S. trade deficit widened to $60.3 billion as Europe pressed Washington to restore a 15% deal. - That matters because the court killed one tariff tool, not tariff politics — importers are chasing refunds while Trump’s team looks for other laws.
Tariffs are back in the news, but the key event did not happen today. The Supreme Court knocked out Donald Trump’s emergency tariffs on February 20, 2026. What happened on May 5 is the next phase — new trade data, refund fights, and a fresh clash with Europe over what tariff regime comes next. Basically, the court settled one legal question, but it did not settle the trade war. ### What did the Supreme Court actually do? The Court ruled 6-3 in *Learning Resources v. Trump* that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act — IEEPA — does not let a president impose tariffs just by declaring an emergency. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that the law’s language could not carry that much weight. That wiped out the tariff program Trump had built on that statute, including the broad “Liberation Day” duties. ### Why does that matter so much? Because IEEPA was the fast, flexible tool. It let the White House slap tariffs on imports from almost any country and justify it as an emergency response. The Court’s ruling drew a hard line around executive power in trade. That is bigger than one tariff schedule — it says presidents cannot invent a sweeping tax on imports from vague emergency language. ### So why is this story moving again now? Two reasons. First, the Commerce Department said on May 5 that the U.S. goods-and-services trade deficit widened to $60.3 billion in March, up from a revised $57.8 billion in February. Imports rose to $381.2 billion, while exports reached $320.9 billion. Second, Europe is reacting to new U.S. tariff threats and trying to lock Washington back into last year’s 15% arrangement. ### Does the wider trade deficit prove the tariffs failed? Not cleanly — but it does undercut the simple sales pitch. Tariffs were supposed to shrink the gap by discouraging imports and reviving domestic production. Instead, March showed imports still outrunning exports. One month does not decide the whole argument, but it is a reminder that trade balance. ### Who gets money back? Importers are the ones with the strongest refund claims, because they are the parties that
