Trump EXPLODES After His Own Justices Turn

President Trump’s own Supreme Court appointees joined liberal justices to strike down his sweeping tariffs, prompting an unprecedented presidential attack on the Court that has conservatives questioning whether judicial independence now trumps constitutional governance and economic security.

Story Snapshot

Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on February 20, 2026, that Trump’s use of emergency powers to impose 10% global tariffs violated Congress’s exclusive constitutional authority over trade.
Trump responded by calling justices—including his own appointees Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch—a “disgrace to our nation,” “unpatriotic,” and an “embarrassment to their families.”
The President announced plans to reimpose equivalent tariffs through alternative legal pathways, bypassing Congress despite the Court’s ruling on separation of powers.
Vice President JD Vance labeled the ruling “lawlessness,” while Trump barely invited the justices to next week’s State of the Union address.

Court Strikes Down Emergency Tariff Authority

The Supreme Court delivered a 6-3 decision invalidating President Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose 10% tariffs on nearly all U.S. trading partners. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion, emphasizing that Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution reserves tariff authority exclusively to Congress. Justices Gorsuch and Barrett, both Trump appointees, joined the three liberal justices in the majority, while Justices Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh dissented. The ruling represents the strongest judicial pushback against executive overreach on trade policy in recent history.

Trump Launches Personal Attack on Justices

Hours after the ruling, Trump held an impromptu White House press conference where he unleashed unprecedented personal attacks on Supreme Court justices. He specifically targeted Barrett and Gorsuch, calling them “fools” and “lapdogs,” questioning their patriotism and loyalty. Trump claimed without evidence that justices were influenced by foreign interests, characterizing their constitutional reasoning as cowardice. He thanked the three dissenting justices while announcing that those in the majority would receive minimal recognition at his upcoming State of the Union address. This marks Trump’s first direct assault on Supreme Court justices by name, escalating beyond his typical criticism of lower court “rogue judges.”

Constitutional Separation of Powers Reinforced

The Court’s decision reinforced the Framers’ intent that Congress alone holds the power to levy taxes and regulate commerce with foreign nations. Trump had invoked IEEPA, a 1977 law designed for national security emergencies involving sanctions, to declare broad trade threats justifying the tariffs. Lower courts, including the U.S. Court of International Trade, had already rejected this interpretation before the case reached the Supreme Court. The ruling clarifies that emergency powers cannot be stretched to circumvent Congress’s constitutional trade authority during peacetime economic disputes. This constitutional guardrail protects against executive branch consolidation of powers that the Founders deliberately separated.

Economic Agenda Faces Setback Despite Alternative Plans

Trump’s tariff strategy aimed to reshore American manufacturing jobs and strengthen domestic production capabilities, core components of his “America First” economic platform. Despite implementing various tariffs during his second term, no measurable manufacturing job gains have materialized after one year. The President announced plans to reimpose equivalent 10% tariffs using alternative statutory authorities that require formal trade investigations, though these pathways involve significantly longer implementation timelines. Trump dismissed seeking congressional approval, despite the Court’s explicit ruling that tariff power belongs to the legislative branch. This approach raises questions about whether constitutional boundaries matter when pursuing legitimate policy goals.

Broader Implications for Conservative Governance

The ruling exposes tensions within conservative jurisprudence between supporting presidential authority and upholding constitutional limitations on executive power. Trump’s appointed justices prioritized textual constitutional interpretation over deference to the President who elevated them, demonstrating judicial independence that some conservatives celebrate and others view as betrayal. Vice President Vance’s characterization of the decision as “lawlessness” reflects frustration that judges apply constitutional constraints even when policy objectives align with conservative economic nationalism. The episode raises concerns about eroding respect for judicial independence when courts check executive power, a principle essential to preventing government overreach regardless of which party controls the White House. Democrats praised the ruling as protecting both consumers from higher prices and Congress’s constitutional prerogatives.

The conflict between advancing conservative policy goals and maintaining constitutional separation of powers will likely intensify as Trump pursues alternative tariff mechanisms. Whether his administration can achieve manufacturing revival within constitutional bounds remains uncertain, as slower statutory processes may prove less effective than the emergency powers the Court rejected. The personal attacks on justices set a troubling precedent for executive-judicial relations, potentially undermining public confidence in the Court’s legitimacy among Trump’s base while simultaneously demonstrating that constitutional limits still function even when politically inconvenient.