CHICAGO, February 20, 2026 —The U.S. Supreme Court has struck down President Trump’s protectionist tariffs, easing fears within the food-away-from-home business that food and beverage costs would soar as the steep import duties took full effect.
The nation’s highest court ruled 6-3 that the President was encroaching on Congress’ Constitutional authority by unilaterally imposing the tariffs, which typically ranged from a low of about 15% to more than 200%.
The White House had argued that levying the duties fell within the President’s wartime powers. Trump has maintained that the nation is in effect at war with countries that export vast quantities of goods to the U.S. while erecting barriers to imports from the U.S.
He has repeatedly asserted that protectionist tariffs are necessary to protect American manufacturers, farmers, and service providers from unfair competition from abroad. He also contends that the duties would foster more domestic production of materials that are currently imported.
For months, indications have arisen from the Administration that it would find an alternative way of keeping the duties in place should the Supreme Court agree with two lower courts’ rulings that the tariffs did not fall within the President’s purview. Specific alternatives have not come to light.
The Court’s decision, given in a 107-page document that included multiple dissents, comes as doubts have been raised about the theories Trump has sounded to justify the tariffs.
He has maintained since first airing his surcharge plan in April that the duties on imports would be paid by the exporting country and its businesses, not American.
But a report issued last week by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York concluded that 94% of the import surcharges have been footed by U.S. consumers, not foreign exporters or American importers.
The indication was viewed as so potentially damaging to Trump’s tariff policy that the White House attacked the Reserve Bank report. Appearing on CNBC, National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett called the assessment an “embarrassment” and asserted that someone at the Reserve should be disciplined for issuing it.
Hours later, the U.S. Department of Commerce revealed that the tariffs had indeed reduced imports into the U.S. while increasing exports from the U.S. into other nations. But it noted that the trade gap had only closed in December by $2.1 billion from a year ago, or a 0.2% decline on a base of $901.5 billion.
The gap closed despite a $17.3 billion increase in imports from November.
Economists have surmised that many U.S. importers had warehoused goods before one round of Trump’s tariffs took effect in April and another wave too hold in November. Many have predicted that the full effect of the tariffs won’t be felt until those stockpiles were depleted.
Food-cost inflation has been a major challenge for the food-away-from-home business since its supply chain was up-ended by the pandemic. As of December, menu prices are running about 4% above what they were a year ago.
The White House had not yet responded to the Supreme Court’s decision by the time of this posting.
Nor has it addressed the thorny matter of whether duties collected to date under the new tariffs will be refunded, and how that might be accomplished.