Justice Thomas BLASTS Colleagues in GLARING Dissent

Justice Clarence Thomas stood alone in a Supreme Court dissent, proposing a theory of presidential power so expansive it unnerved even his conservative allies—what boundaries remain on the executive branch?

Story Snapshot

Supreme Court rules 6-3 on February 20, 2026, blocking Trump’s $133 billion tariffs under IEEPA.
Thomas’s solo dissent redefines nondelegation doctrine, limiting it to rules affecting life, liberty, or property, exempting tariffs from congressional oversight.
No other justice, including dissenters Kavanaugh and Alito, endorsed Thomas’s radical view.
Decision reaffirms Congress’s Article I control over tariffs, constraining future presidents.
Fractures conservative bloc, highlighting limits on executive power even among originalists.

Supreme Court Invalidates Trump’s Tariffs

The Supreme Court delivered a 6-3 ruling in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump on February 20, 2026. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion, holding that President Trump exceeded authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. IEEPA, enacted in 1977, constrains presidential emergency actions. The Court invalidated $133 billion in tariffs imposed on trading partners. Lower courts in May and August 2025 unanimously rejected the tariffs first.

Thomas Advances Isolated Executive Power Theory

Justice Clarence Thomas dissented alone, separate from Kavanaugh and Alito. He argued the nondelegation doctrine applies solely to rules impacting life, liberty, or property. Tariffs, he claimed, fall outside this scope, freeing presidents from congressional limits in trade regulation. Thomas asserted IEEPA grants clear tariff authority, rooted in historical presidential powers over importation. This novel Due Process Clause reading alarmed observers.

Conservative Justices Fracture on Statutory Interpretation

Justices Kavanaugh and Alito joined a dissent focused on IEEPA’s text. They contended “regulate importation” historically includes tariffs, criticizing the majority’s analysis as weak. Lower courts distinguished IEEPA from explicit tariff laws like Sections 232 and 301. The government conceded no inherent peacetime tariff power, forcing statutory debate. Roberts emphasized clear congressional authorization for extraordinary executive actions.

Gorsuch reportedly criticized Thomas’s theory separately, revealing bloc tensions. Even executive-power skeptics rejected the approach as too far-reaching. This isolation underscores judicial caution against monarchical precedents.

Historical Roots of IEEPA Constraints

Congress passed IEEPA in 1977 to replace the broad World War I Trading with the Enemy Act. Lawmakers sought clear standards and accountability after peacetime abuses. Article I vests legislative power, including tariffs as taxes, in Congress. The Supreme Court struck down laws on nondelegation grounds only twice, in 1935. Thomas’s theory risks upending this balance in foreign affairs and beyond.

Trump labeled the ruling a disgrace, highlighting political stakes. The decision strengthens the major questions doctrine, demanding explicit delegation for big policies. Future presidents must secure congressional approval for similar tariffs. Importers and consumers gain from lower prices; domestic producers lose protection. Trade partners avoid escalation threats.