The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a stinging rebuke to President Donald Trump on Feb. 20, ruling 6‑3 that he lacked authority to impose sweeping tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the Constitution gives Congress the exclusive power to levy tariffs and that IEEPA’s laundry list of emergency powers contains no mention of tariffs or duties. If Congress had intended to confer such extraordinary taxing power on the president, it would have done so explicitly. The ruling invalidates global “Liberation Day” tariffs of 10% or more imposed since April 2025, though steel and other national‑security duties under Section 232 remain intact.

News coverage underscores both constitutional and economic stakes. Reuters highlighted the Court’s reliance on the major questions doctrine and noted that businesses may seek refunds on more than $175 billion collected under IEEPA tariffs. Fox News quoted Roberts’ warning that the Framers vested tariff power in “Congress alone” and that vague statutory language cannot justify unbounded executive levies. TIME called the decision a sharp blow to Trump’s economic agenda and pointed out that about 75% of his tariffs were based on IEEPA. Market analysts told Morningstar that the decision doesn’t end Trump’s trade war because he can still use Section 232 and Section 301 to impose targeted duties. Libertarian commentator Scott Lincicome celebrated the ruling but cautioned that the president retains other tariff tools, while the Daily Beast mocked the decision as a “brutal takedown” and predicted a wave of refund claims.

A Bridge Too Far

I’m not a constitutional scholar, but even a Brooklyn kid who grew up selling knock‑off sneakers on Flatbush Avenue knows that taxes and tariffs are Congress’s turf. Over decades, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have ceded more and more of their authority to presidents craving decisive headlines. Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs, rolled out with charts, applause and talk of national emergencies, always felt like a bridge too far. The Framers designed checks and balances precisely to prevent a single person from taxing the world at will. That a conservative‑dominated Court had to remind us of this basic civics lesson says a lot about the times we live in. Still, credit where it’s due: even Justices appointed by Trump agreed that vague statutes cannot swallow constitutional principles. As Chief Justice Roberts dryly observed, IEEPA lists many emergency powers but none of them involve reaching into businesses’ wallets.

So what does this mean for those of us building the future? The answer is complicated. Many import duties affecting semiconductors, batteries and critical components were imposed under Section 232 (national security) or Section 301 (trade retaliation), which the Court did not touch. The White House has already signaled it will shift any invalidated IEEPA tariffs to those authorities. Companies that pledged to build wafer fabs or assembly plants in Arizona, Ohio or Texas to dodge tariffs probably weren’t doing so solely because of IEEPA; they were chasing generous CHIPS Act subsidies, tax credits and proximity to U.S. customers. Those incentives remain. Still, some marginal projects—say, a Taiwanese contract manufacturer weighing Phoenix versus Penang—might slow down if the tariff risk recedes.

From an AI and digital‑sovereignty perspective, lower import duties could cut costs for cloud providers, data‑center operators and startups that need GPUs and networking gear. U.S. hyperscalers spend billions on Taiwanese and Korean semiconductors; a 10% tariff on those chips is real money when you’re training large models. Conversely, European and Asian governments will view the ruling as proof that unilateral U.S. trade measures are vulnerable, which might embolden their own industrial strategies. We could see more subtle forms of protectionism, export controls on AI chips, national‑security reviews of data centers, rather than blunt tariffs.

In the short term, the Court’s decision may create uncertainty. Importers will scramble to file refund claims; lawyers will bill handsome fees; and the administration will race to write new tariff proclamations under other laws. But in the long run, this is a good day for the Constitution and a good day for technology. Innovation thrives when rules are clear and predictable. It suffers when governments weaponize economic emergencies to pick winners and losers. By reaffirming that taxes are the legislature’s business, the Court has nudged us back toward a system where trade policy is debated openly rather than decreed from the Rose Garden.

Call me old-fashioned, but I believe the tech industry belongs in a global marketplace. I’m a ’70s classic rock guy. The best bands didn’t need tariffs. They needed talent. Let the best ideas, products and people win, whether they hail from Silicon Valley, Shenzhen or Seoul. If the U.S. wants to compete, we should invest in education, R&D and infrastructure rather than tariffs. That’s why I’m applauding this decision. It doesn’t solve every problem, and it won’t stop future presidents from testing the limits of their power. But for one sunny Friday in February, the Supreme Court reminded us that even an era of executive swagger has constitutional guardrails, and that’s something to celebrate.