US Supreme Court ends term with setbacks for Trump on tariffs, birthright citizenship

The US Supreme Court wrapped its 2025-2026 term on June 30, 2026, with a pair of rulings that dealt significant blows to two of President Donald Trump’s most prominent policy ambitions. The Court invalidated Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship and separately ruled that the president lacks authority to impose broad tariffs unilaterally under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

Both decisions landed with identical 6-3 margins.

Birthright citizenship survives, again

In Trump v. Barbara, the Court struck down an executive order that sought to deny citizenship to children born on US soil to undocumented immigrants and those on temporary visas. Chief Justice Roberts authored the majority opinion, reaffirming the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.

The Supreme Court settled this question back in 1898 with United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which established that the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to virtually anyone born within US borders.

The tariff ruling and its $166 billion problem

The tariff decision came on February 20, 2026. The Court ruled 6-3 that IEEPA, a Cold War-era statute designed for financial sanctions and asset freezes, does not grant the president authority to impose sweeping import tariffs.

The tariff programs struck down had generated over $166 billion in revenue. There are active discussions about whether that money needs to be refunded to the businesses and importers who paid it.

Trump publicly criticized conservative justices following the tariff ruling, seemingly anticipating that the birthright citizenship decision would go against him as well.

What Bitcoin did (and didn’t do)

Crypto markets reacted to the tariff ruling back in February with a brief but notable spike. Bitcoin climbed above $68,000 in the immediate aftermath before settling back to approximately $67,000 shortly after.

No other digital assets were meaningfully connected to these Supreme Court decisions.

What this means for investors

The combined rulings create a complicated landscape. If the $166 billion refund discussion gains traction, expect ripple effects across import-heavy sectors and the companies that absorbed those costs. The term also included rulings that expanded executive authority in certain areas, meaning this isn’t a clean narrative of judicial restraint.

Traders should be watching for two developments in the coming months. First, whether the refund process for the $166 billion actually materializes. Second, whether the administration pivots to Congress for new tariff authority. The Court didn’t say tariffs are unconstitutional. It said this particular legal mechanism for imposing them doesn’t work.

Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.