Even missing Sidney Crosby, stacked power play gets Canada into the Olympic final

MILAN (AP) — Taking a penalty against Canada at the Olympics is a bad idea. Niko Mikkola high-sticking Nathan MacKinnon in the final few minutes was a really bad idea for Finland.

Nowhere is Canada's embarrassment of riches of high-end talent clearer than on the power play, when it can put arguably three of the five or six best hockey players on the planet on the ice at the same time in Connor McDavid, Nathan MacKinnon and Cale Makar.

Even while missing injured captain Sidney Crosby and with Macklin Celebrini filling in and Sam Reinhart parking himself in front of that net, that unit scored the go-ahead goal with 35.2 seconds left Friday to send Canada to the gold medal game. McDavid traces the development of the power play back a year to the 4 Nations Face-Off.

“We’ve worked on this power play a lot,” McDavid said. "Something we talk about a lot. We do it for these big moments and found a way to score a big one in a big moment.”

Canada is 7 for 16 on the power play, a success rate of 43.75%. For reference, the NHL record for the best power-play efficiency over the course of a season is 32.4% by the 2022-23 Edmonton Oilers, who also had McDavid.

The saucer pass by McDavid over penalty killer Roope Hintz's stick and to MacKinnon was the latest example of why he's regarded as the best player in the league.

“I tried to feather one over there earlier and a guy got a stick on it, but he was open again and just tried to get it to him,” McDavid said.

McDavid also picked up an assist on the unit's first power-play goal against Finland when Makar shot the puck directly at Reinhart's stick for a textbook deflection that Juuse Saros had little chance of stopping.

“He was in a great spot," Makar said. "They kind of gave me a little bit of a lane, and (Reinhart is) obviously an amazing player and can read their PK or their defense really well and he put himself in a great spot. I just tried to get it there, and he made a great play.”

That goal cut Canada's deficit in half and took some of the pressure off. After Shea Theodore tied it with just under 10 minutes left, MacKinnon's winning goal wasn't just a great play by him and McDavid.

Celebrini, Canada's youngest player at the Olympics at 19, picked up the secondary assist and also made a major impact by jumping to screen Saros while MacKinnon was shooting.

Asked if he had ever seen a player that age play as well as Celebrini did, 36-year-old Drew Doughty responded, “No, I haven't.” Doughty was the youngest player on the team in 2010 at 20 when Canada won gold on home ice in Vancouver and quipped, "I didn’t play as good as him.”

Celebrini also starred at even strength on the line coach Jon Cooper put together, alongside McDavid and MacKinnon. He led all players with eight shots on goal, and the “three Macs," as Cooper called them, drove Canada's attack all game at 5 on 5.

“It’s phenomenal,” forward Bo Horvat said. “They’re obviously our best line tonight by mile, and they just create so much offense, and they have so much great chemistry. They all think alike, and they were phenomenal again for us.”

AP Winter Olympics: https://apnews.com/hub/milan-cortina-2026-winter-olympics

Finland's Juuse Saros reacts after Canada's Nathan MacKinnon, not seen, scored his side's third goal during a men's ice hockey semifinal game between Canada and Finland at the 2026 Winter Olympics, in Milan, Italy, Friday, Feb. 20, 2026. (Mike Segar/Pool Photo via AP)

Canada's Nathan MacKinnon (29) celebrates with teammates after scoring his side's third goal during a men's ice hockey semifinal game between Canada and Finland at the 2026 Winter Olympics, in Milan, Italy, Friday, Feb. 20, 2026. (AP Photo/Petr David Josek)

Canada's Nathan MacKinnon (29) celebrates after scoring his side's third goal during a men's ice hockey semifinal game between Canada and Finland at the 2026 Winter Olympics, in Milan, Italy, Friday, Feb. 20, 2026. (AP Photo/Hassan Ammar)

Canada's Nathan MacKinnon (29) celebrates with Sam Reinhart (13) and Macklin Celebrini (17) after MacKinnon scored a goal against Finland during the third period of a men's ice hockey semifinal game at the 2026 Winter Olympics in Milan, Italy, Friday, Feb. 20, 2026. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court struck down President Donald Trump's far-reaching global tariffs on Friday, handing him a stinging loss that sparked a furious attack on the court he helped shape.

Trump said he was “absolutely ashamed” of some justices who ruled 6-3 against him, calling them “disloyal to our Constitution" and “lapdogs." At one point he even raised the specter of foreign influence without citing any evidence.

The decision could have ripple effects on economies around the globe after Trump's moves to remake post-World War II trading alliances by wielding tariffs as a weapon.

But an unbowed Trump pledged to impose a new global 10% tariff under a law that's restricted to 150 days and has never been used to apply tariffs before.

“Their decision is incorrect,” he said. “But it doesn’t matter because we have very powerful alternatives.”

The court's ruling found tariffs that Trump imposed under an emergency powers law were unconstitutional, including the sweeping “reciprocal” tariffs he levied on nearly every other country.

Trump appointed three of the justices on the nation’s highest court during his first term, and has scored a series of short-term wins that have allowed him to move ahead with key policies.

Tariffs, though, were the first major piece of Trump's broad agenda to come squarely before the Supreme Court for a final ruling, after lower courts had also sided against the president.

The majority found that it is unconstitutional for the president to unilaterally set and change tariffs because taxation power clearly belongs to Congress. “The Framers did not vest any part of the taxing power in the Executive Branch,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote.

Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented.

“The tariffs at issue here may or may not be wise policy. But as a matter of text, history, and precedent, they are clearly lawful,” Kavanaugh wrote. Trump praised his 63-page dissent as “genius.”

The court majority did not address whether businesses could get refunded for the billions they have collectively paid in tariffs. Many companies, including the big-box warehouse chain Costco, have already lined up in lower courts to demand refunds. Kavanaugh noted the process could be complicated.

“The Court says nothing today about whether, and if so how, the Government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers. But that process is likely to be a ‘mess,’ as was acknowledged at oral argument,” he wrote.

The Treasury had collected more than $133 billion from the import taxes the president has imposed under the emergency powers law as of December, federal data shows. The impact over the next decade has been estimated at some $3 trillion.

The tariffs decision doesn’t stop Trump from imposing duties under other laws. Those have more limitations on the speed and severity of Trump’s actions, but the president said they would still allow him to “charge much more” than he had before.

Vice President JD Vance called the high court decision “lawlessness” in a post on X.

Still, the ruling is a “complete and total victory" for the challengers, said Neal Katyal, who argued the case on behalf of a group of small businesses.

“It’s a reaffirmation of our deepest constitutional values and the idea that Congress, not any one man, controls the power to tax the American people,” he said.

It wasn’t immediately clear how the decision restricting Trump’s power to unilaterally set and change tariffs might affect trade deals with other countries.

“We remain in close contact with the U.S. Administration as we seek clarity on the steps they intend to take in response to this ruling,” European Commission spokesman Olof Gill said, adding that the body would keep pushing for lower tariffs.

The Supreme Court ruling comes despite a series of short-term wins on the court’s emergency docket that have allowed Trump to push ahead with extraordinary flexes of executive power on issues ranging from high-profile firings to major federal funding cuts.

The Republican president had long been vocal about the case, calling it one of the most important in U.S. history and saying a ruling against him would be an economic body blow to the country. But legal opposition crossed the political spectrum, including libertarian and pro-business groups that are typically aligned with the GOP. Polling has found tariffs aren't broadly popular with the public, amid wider voter concern about affordability.

While the Constitution gives Congress the power to levy tariffs, the Trump administration argued that a 1977 law allowing the president to regulate importation during emergencies also allows him to set import duties. Other presidents have used the law dozens of times, often to impose sanctions, but Trump was the first president to invoke it for import taxes.

“And the fact that no President has ever found such power in IEEPA is strong evidence that it does not exist,” Roberts wrote, using an acronym for the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

Trump set what he called "reciprocal" tariffs on most countries in April 2025 to address trade deficits that he declared a national emergency. Those came after he imposed duties on Canada, China and Mexico, ostensibly to address a drug trafficking emergency.

A series of lawsuits followed, including a case from a dozen largely Democratic-leaning states and others from small businesses selling everything from plumbing supplies to educational toys to women’s cycling apparel.

The challengers argued the emergency powers law doesn’t even mention tariffs and Trump's use of it fails several legal tests, including one that doomed then-President Joe Biden's $500 billion student loan forgiveness program.

The three conservative justices in the majority pointed to that principle, which is called the major questions doctrine. It holds that Congress must clearly authorize actions of major economic and political significance.

“There is no exception to the major questions doctrine for emergency statutes,” Roberts wrote. The three liberal justices formed the rest of the majority, but didn't join that part of the opinion.

The Trump administration had argued that tariffs are different because they’re a major part of Trump’s approach to foreign affairs, an area where the courts should not be second-guessing the president.

But Roberts, joined by Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, brushed that aside, writing that the foreign affairs implications don't change the legal principle.

Small businesses celebrated the ruling, with the National Retail Federation saying it provides “much needed certainty.”

Illinois toy company Learning Resources was among the businesses challenging the tariffs in court. CEO Rick Woldenberg said he expected Trump's threat of new tariffs, but hoped there might be more constraint in the future, both legal and political. “Somebody’s got to pay this bill. Those people that pay the bill are voters,” he said.

Ann Robinson, who owns Scottish Gourmet in Greensboro, North Carolina, said she was “doing a happy dance” when she heard the news.

The 10% baseline tariff on U.K. goods put pressure on Robinson’s business, costing about $30,000 in the fall season. She’s unsure about the Trump administration’s next steps, but said she’s overjoyed for now. “Time to schedule my ‘Say Goodbye to Tariffs' Sale!”

Associated Press writers Mae Anderson and Steve Peoples in New York, Mark Sherman in Washington and David McHugh in Frankfurt contributed to this report.

Follow the AP's coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court.

President Donald Trump speaks with reporters in the James Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House, Friday, Feb. 20, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

President Donald Trump speaks with reporters in the James Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House, Friday, Feb. 20, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

President Donald Trump speaks during a press briefing at the White House, Friday, Feb. 20, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

FILE - The Supreme Court is seen, Jan. 13, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson, File)

FILE - The Supreme Court is photographed, Feb. 6, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/Rahmat Gul, File)