The Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling that IEEPA bars broad presidential tariffs prompted Trump to attack his own nominees and threaten court expansion.
President Donald Trump publicly attacked two of his own Supreme Court appointees and threatened to expand the Court's membership after a 6-3 majority invalidated his administration's broad tariff regime under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Trump posted on social media that the ruling "cost the United States 159 Billion Dollars" and warned that he would "PACK THE COURT" in response [1]. The targets of his criticism were Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, both of whom he nominated and the Senate confirmed during his first term [1].
The ruling at issue, *Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump*, was decided Feb. 20, 2026, with Chief Justice John Roberts authoring the majority opinion [1]. The Court held, 6-3, that IEEPA does not grant the president authority to impose sweeping tariffs of the kind the administration had levied [1]. Gorsuch and Barrett joined Roberts and three other justices in the majority. Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented [1]. The case was brought by Learning Resources Inc., a toy and educational-materials manufacturer, challenging the tariffs as exceeding executive statutory authority. The decision was handed down by the Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D.C.
The ruling carries significant structural weight. IEEPA had served as the administration's primary legal vehicle for unilaterally imposing tariffs without congressional authorization. By holding that the statute does not reach that far, the majority effectively stripped the executive branch of a key instrument for trade policy conducted outside the normal legislative process [1]. The decision constrains not only the current administration but any future president who might invoke IEEPA for similar purposes. Trump's threat to pack the Court, if translated into legislation, would require an act of Congress and faces long odds in either chamber, but the public statement itself injects political pressure into the judiciary's institutional environment [1].
The administration has not announced a formal legal response to the ruling, and no emergency application or motion for reconsideration has been publicly filed as of the date of Trump's social-media posts [1]. Congressional reaction is forming. Lawmakers in both parties will face pressure to clarify IEEPA's scope through legislation, and any court-expansion bill would require committee action before reaching the floor. The combination of a sweeping statutory loss and a presidential threat against specific sitting justices sets the stage for a prolonged separation-of-powers confrontation between the executive branch and the federal judiciary.