February 2026 delivered a compact but consequential set of Supreme Court decisions. The month’s cases touched presidential tariff authority, federal sovereign immunity, removal jurisdiction, contractor liability, and the rights of criminal defendants during trial.

Unlike January’s procedural reset, February focused more directly on institutional boundaries. The Court limited the executive branch’s ability to impose tariffs under emergency powers, narrowed immunity arguments by federal actors and contractors, and clarified when courtroom control can restrict a defendant’s communications with counsel.

Taken together, February’s rulings show a Court willing to police the edges of government power while still giving trial judges and federal courts significant control over litigation flow.

No. 24-1287 — Feb. 20, 2026

Decision:
The Supreme Court held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.

Opinion:
The Court rejected the government’s argument that IEEPA’s authority to regulate importation allowed broad tariff power. The opinion emphasized that the challenged tariffs were sweeping in scope, amount, and duration, and that Congress had not clearly delegated that kind of taxing authority to the President.

Vote Breakdown:
Majority decision. Chief Justice Roberts authored the opinion according to the Supreme Court’s official term listing.

What it means for the public:
Presidents cannot use emergency economic powers as a shortcut for major tariff programs unless Congress clearly authorizes that move.

Who benefits:
Importers, retailers, consumers, and businesses challenging unilateral tariff regimes.

Who gets harmed:
Executive-branch efforts to impose broad trade penalties without specific congressional authorization.

Who stays central:
Congress, trade-affected businesses, and courts reviewing emergency economic powers.

Official Slip Opinion:
Available through the Supreme Court’s February 20, 2026 opinion listing.

No. 24-351 — Feb. 24, 2026

Decision:
The Supreme Court addressed the limits of suing the United States Postal Service under the Federal Tort Claims Act.

Opinion:
The Court explained that the United States retains sovereign immunity unless Congress clearly waives it. The case turned on the scope of that waiver and whether the plaintiff’s claims could proceed against the Postal Service under the FTCA.

Vote Breakdown:
Justice Thomas authored the opinion according to the Supreme Court’s official term listing.

What it means for the public:
People harmed by federal employees still face strict limits when trying to sue the federal government.

Who benefits:
Federal agencies and government defendants relying on sovereign immunity.

Who gets harmed:
Plaintiffs attempting to bring tort claims against federal entities.

Who stays central:
Congress, because federal liability depends on how clearly Congress waives immunity.

Official Slip Opinion:
Available through the Supreme Court’s February 24, 2026 opinion listing.

No. 24-724 — Feb. 24, 2026

Decision:
The Supreme Court held that when a removed case lacked proper federal jurisdiction, the Fifth Circuit correctly vacated the judgment in Hain’s favor.

Opinion:
The Court reaffirmed that federal courts must always satisfy themselves that jurisdiction exists, including the jurisdiction of the lower court whose judgment they are reviewing.

Vote Breakdown:
Justice Sotomayor authored the opinion according to the Supreme Court’s official term listing.

What it means for the public:
A party cannot keep a federal-court victory if the case never belonged in federal court.

Who benefits:
Litigants challenging improper removal.

Who gets harmed:
Defendants who remove cases to federal court without a sound jurisdictional basis.

Who stays central:
Federal courts enforcing the limits of their own power.

Official Slip Opinion:
Available through the Supreme Court’s February 24, 2026 opinion listing.

No. 24-758 — Feb. 25, 2026

Decision:
The Supreme Court held that a federal contractor cannot immediately appeal a pretrial order denying protection under the Yearsley doctrine.

Opinion:
The Court treated Yearsley protection as a potential defense from liability, not immunity from suit. Because it is not true immunity, the contractor could not use it to force an immediate mid-case appeal.

Vote Breakdown:
Unanimous judgment. Justice Kagan delivered the opinion. Thomas concurred in part and in the judgment. Alito concurred in the judgment.

What it means for the public:
Government contractors accused of wrongdoing cannot automatically delay lawsuits by claiming derivative immunity.

Who benefits:
Plaintiffs seeking accountability from private companies performing government functions.

Who gets harmed:
Contractors trying to avoid litigation through immediate appeals.

Who stays central:
Courts deciding whether government-contractor defenses are truly immunity or ordinary merits defenses.

Official Slip Opinion:
Available through the Supreme Court’s February 25, 2026 opinion listing.

No. 24-557 — Feb. 25, 2026

Decision:
The Supreme Court held that a trial court may prohibit a criminal defendant’s lawyer from managing the defendant’s testimony during an overnight recess, while still allowing other attorney-client discussion.

Opinion:
The Court found that a qualified order limiting testimony coaching does not violate the Sixth Amendment when it preserves the defendant’s broader right to consult counsel.

Vote Breakdown:
Unanimous judgment. Justice Jackson authored the opinion.

What it means for the public:
Criminal defendants keep the right to consult with counsel, but trial judges may limit coaching while testimony is ongoing.

Who benefits:
Trial courts seeking to preserve unaltered witness testimony.

Who gets harmed:
Defendants arguing for unrestricted attorney discussion during mid-testimony breaks.

Who stays central:
Trial judges balancing truth-seeking against the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

Official Slip Opinion:
Available through the Supreme Court’s February 25, 2026 opinion listing.

February was about jurisdiction, immunity, and executive limits. The Court pushed back against presidential tariff authority, tightened the rules around federal-court power, and made clear that immunity claims do not always justify stopping a lawsuit in its tracks.

For ordinary people, the month’s theme was access with boundaries. Plaintiffs gained ground against government contractors and improper removal tactics. Criminal defendants lost some room to challenge carefully limited trial-court restrictions. Businesses gained a major ruling against emergency tariffs.

The larger takeaway is simple: February’s Court was skeptical of power without clear authorization. Whether the actor was the President, a federal agency, a contractor, or a litigant trying to hold onto a federal judgment, the Court kept returning to the same question.

Who gave you that authority?