Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump’s Tariffs
“IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs”
The Supreme Court (6-3 in a majority opinion written by CJ Roberts) has ruled that Trump’s tariffs exceeded his authority.
We decide whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) authorizes the President to impose tariffs.
***
The President asserts the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope. In light of the breadth, history, and constitutional context of that asserted authority, he must identify clear congressional authorization to exercise it. IEEPA’s grant of authority to “regulate . . . importation” falls short. IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties. The Government points to no statute in which Congress used the word “regulate” to authorize taxation. And until now no President has read IEEPA to confer such power. We claim no special competence in matters of economics or foreign affairs. We claim only, as we must, the limited role assigned to us by Article III of the Constitution. Fulfilling that role, we hold that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.
MORE TO FOLLOW
Kavanaugh, joined by Thomas and Alito, wrote the main dissent:
Acting pursuant to his statutory authority to “regulate . . . importation” under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, the President has imposed tariffs on imports of foreign goods from various countries. The tariffs have generated vigorous policy debates. Those policy debates are not for the Federal Judiciary to resolve. Rather, the Judiciary’s more limited role is to neutrally interpret and apply the law. The sole legal question here is whether, under IEEPA, tariffs are a means to “regulate . . . importation.” Statutory text, history, and precedent demonstrate that the answer is clearly yes: Like quotas and embargoes, tariffs are a traditional and common tool to regulate importation.
***
The plaintiffs argue and the Court concludes that the President lacks authority under IEEPA to impose tariffs. I disagree. In accord with Judge Taranto’s careful and persuasive opinion in the Federal Circuit, I would conclude that the President’s power under IEEPA to “regulate . . . importation” encompasses tariffs. As a matter of ordinary meaning, including dictionary definitions and historical Cite as: 607 U. S. ____ (2026) KAVANAUGH, J., dissenting 3 usage, the broad power to “regulate . . . importation” includes the traditional and common means to do so—in particular, quotas, embargoes, and tariffs. History and precedent confirm that conclusion. In 1971, President Nixon imposed 10 percent tariffs on almost all foreign imports. He levied the tariffs under IEEPA’s predecessor statute, the Trading with the Enemy Act, which similarly authorized the President to “regulate . . . importation.” The Nixon tariffs were upheld in court….
Context and common sense buttress that interpretation of IEEPA. The plaintiffs and the Court acknowledge that IEEPA authorizes the President to impose quotas or embargoes on foreign imports—meaning that a President could completely block some or all imports. But they say that IEEPA does not authorize the President to employ the lesser power of tariffs, which simply condition imports on a payment. As they interpret the statute, the President could, for example, block all imports from China but cannot order even a $1 tariff on goods imported from China. That approach does not make much sense. Properly read, IEEPA does not draw such an odd distinction between quotas and embargoes on the one hand and tariffs on the other. Rather, it empowers the President to regulate imports during national emergencies with the tools Presidents have traditionally and commonly used, including quotas, embargoes, and tariffs.
***
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. I respectfully dissent.
Reactions
Trump will hold a press conference later, but he already made a few remarks.
🚨 BREAKING: President Trump just went FULL FIRE on the Supreme Court:
“The Supreme Court should DO THE RIGHT THING and UPHOLD my sweeping tariffs.
You know who brought the cases against us? People that have BUSINESS in CHINA!
They want to keep ripping us off, and the tariffs… pic.twitter.com/Ckp48N9zol
— Gunther Eagleman™ (@GuntherEagleman) February 19, 2026
Professor Jonathan Turley explained how the administration can get around the ruling:
TURLEY: “And this is what some of us predicted. This was a case where the administration was at a disadvantage. IEEPA does not refer to tariffs, and tariffs are a big deal under the Constitution. It’s a critical form of revenue that is left to Congress. And I thought that the administration did a terrific job in front of the Supreme Court. They could not have argued this case better, in my view. But you can’t really escape that language. And right out of the bat, when that oral argument began, Chief Justice John Roberts said this is a tax. You could almost hear the administration gulping because that’s not what they wanted the justices to take from their argument. But Roberts and others clearly view this as a tax that rests with Congress. Now, there is a lot of runway still for the administration. We have to really get into this opinion, into some of the weeds to see if it is perspective only, but also the administration has other tools in its toolbox. It can actually impose tariffs under other statutes. So this night is hardly over for the administration when it comes to tariffs.”
JONATHAN TURLEY: "There's a lot of runway still for the administration…"
"The administration has other tools in its toolbox. It CAN actually impose tariffs under other statutes!" https://t.co/xGN3evQLch pic.twitter.com/Kya76PnD6y
— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) February 20, 2026
…The fact is that the Court focused on the legal issue before it. It had a statute that lacked clear authority for tariffs. Some of these justices traditionally follow an approach that is more textual on such questions…
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) February 20, 2026
…It is important to note that the majority here was holding the line on what they view (correctly) as a core check and balance of Congress in control of the power of the purse. The vagueness of this authority and the sweeping use by the Administration gave a majority of…
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) February 20, 2026
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Terrible decision. Past Presidents have imposed tariffs so there is precedent.
Past presidents have done a lot of unconstitutional stuff. That does not imply that SCOTUS has to give them a pass when it comes before them.
It literally survived court challenge. There’s legal precedent. Did you read?
This also isn’t terrible. It’s actually rebalancing trade.
No, it did not. There is no precedent at all. Yoshida was simply a case of an appeals court giving the government a one-time-only escape from having to refund billions that it had stolen. The appeal was the first time the TWEA had been mentioned in the case, and the appeals court only bought it because the tariffs had already been lifted, so the question was moot except for the refunds. It was a dishonest decision.
And in any case the TWEA is no longer the law, and IEEPA was specifically intended to narrow the president’s powers from what they had been under TWEA.
Alleged past unconstitutional acts, does not justify the gross court overreach and legally incoherent mess of this decision. This will do considerable harm both to the economy and foreign relations. Another truly awful decision from Roberts.
It is the correct decision. IEEPA simply does not authorize tariffs, and no one last year ever thought it did.
And Trump is not going to be able to get away with not refunding the money, after having sworn up and down in court that if he lost the tariffs would of course be refunded. He relied on that claim and is now estopped from changing his mind.
Terrible or not terrible I want my money back.
Good luck…it will go to the companies that paid the tariffs, not you.
My company paid the tariffs.
And I want my money back.
Roberts and Barrett sided with Sotomayor, Kagan & Jackson against the 3 conservatives on the court. Definitely a rare and striking alignment when the Chief Justice and Amy Coney cross the aisle to join the 3 lame-brained liberal women, especially on a case with such massive economic stakes.
Kavanaugh, Thomas and Alito dissented because they do not have as much knowledge of the constitution as Sotomayor, Kagan & Jackson.
did you forget the sarc tag
The Constitution is not suspended because one believes there are “massive economic stakes”.
On the contrary, this was the conservative decision. Roberts, Barrett, and Gorsuch are the conservatives here. The dissenters betrayed their past conservatism.
It is obvious that the complete Epstein files have not been realeaced as Roberts is still under the thumb of the Dems.
No, they have not. NO president has EVER claimed that the IEEPA or its predecessor the TWEA authorized tariffs. Not once. Not even Nixon, who is falsely claimed to have done so under the TWEA.
And even if Nixon had read the TWEA that way, the IEEPA was passed specifically to narrow the president’s powers under the TWEA, so it still wouldn’t be a precedent.
The decision is 100% correct, and the dissenters are a big disappointment. As Gorsuch pointed out, they were all for the Major Questions doctrine when it was Biden acting beyond his powers, but somehow they ignore it when it’s Trump.
Entirely predictable decision, and most likely correct. Only the birthright citizen case is more predictable.
Is there a remedy included? Do we need to refund all tariffs paid under these orders?
Other Tariff authorities remain intact and available. The decision is more narrow than reported. It only blocks tariffs under IEEPA. Tariffs imposed under longstanding trade laws like Section 232 (National Security) and Section 301 (Unfair Trade Practices) are unaffected.
Administration officials have already signaled they plan to pivot quickly to those tools to reimpose similar duties, keeping much of the trade pressure and revenue stream alive.
The tariff strategy and system are not going away.
No one ever suggested tariffs were going away. The challenge was only to those imposed citing iEEPA, because it clearly does not authorize them.
And reenacting similar tariffs under a different statute will not retroactively legitimize those imposed illegally. That money was stolen, and has to be refunded. Trump knew this, and risked it anyway. This is entirely on him.
No. Most likely incorrect. And most likely will cause confusion and disruption to the economy and foreign relations.
It’s only incorrect if you believe Congress can surrender all legislative power through enabling acts, with the presumption that they have done so without exception unless specifically reserved (and even then limited somehow).
As for disruptions to the economy and foreign relations, they didn’t cause it, Trump’s arbitrary and capricious illegal tariff binge did.
Were they really imposing tariffs under a satute that does not mention tariffs?
They were imposing tariffs under a statute that has been used to impose tariffs before and had been challenged in court and upheld. The only difference is that the statute was updated to the current version under a different name. The verbiage for tariff support did not change.
Yes.
That is just not true.
It was a different statute, it was not used to impose the tariffs and was only brought up for the first time in the appeals court, and the appeals court said almost explicitly that we’re only buying your lame argument because you’ve already lifted the tariffs anyway, and the only relevance is whether you have to refund so much money, so we’ll let you get away with it, but don’t do that again.
I likely agree with Drewsome. I have only briefly scanned the opinion. Based on my limited brief scan, it is likely correct .
Via emergency powers only
Tariffs aren’t going away.
There’s mucho more statutory authorization for them
https://x.com/zerohedge/status/2024866897037054370?s=20
No one suggested tariffs are going away. But these tariffs are gone, because they were always illegal. The government stole money and now it has to give it back. This is the conservative decision.
If there’s “mucho more statutory authorization” that could have been used to impose these tariffs then why didn’t Trump use that authorization? Why did he come up with a stupid theory that no other president had ever come up with before? Obviously there was no other statute that would have authorized these specific tariffs.
@drewsome – The WSJ has loudly been against tariffs (and the Left), saying this was paid for by customers. If that’s so, who gets the refund? If the company simply passed it along to consumers, they would be getting a windfall if they got reimbursed for the tariff. I, too, will be interested in the remedy.
Great perspective. Customers deserve the refunds.
The full amount of the tariffs did not get passed through the the consumer. Its the same with changes in corporate tax rates. Its a common misunderstanding of micro economics. The supply and demand curves controls the amount of the taxes (whether tariffs or corporate income tax) passed through to the consumer ie the amount of the taxes the consumer is willing to pay based on changes in the demand curve.
A good example of the supply and demand curves –
The price of a mid range camera lens pre tariff was 2250. The tariff is 15% or $350. The price increase was $200 to $2,450, so the consumer eats $200 and Sony eats $150.
One of the exceptions is tax credits for purchasing products (solar equipment). In those cases, the increase in price of the equipment is almost entirely and increase in sale
The main people hurt by the tarriffs are manufacturers who use steel and aluminum. Before Tarriffs (made up numbers here to show example) a unit of US aluminum was 1.50 and a unit of foreign aluminum was 1.25. So we put a tarriff on the foreign aluminum so a unit is 2.00 now. Well the US aluminum companies rather than being happy they can sell their aluminum again say hey we can raise our price so they go up to 1.90 a unit. So Trump gets people to buy US Aluminum but at the same time the price per unit went from 1.25 to 1.90 and that difference is paid by the US manufacturers who make stuff from Aluminum. They have to either make less profit or raise prices, most do a little of both.
On the principle, much hammered into our brains these months passed by main-stream media, that the “customers” are the American people who paid for tariffs by higher prices or lowered margins, they’re getting it refunded by not raising taxes to cover the (close to) $2Trillion of deficit spending in 2026.
Customers are taxpayers… they will get a refund by means of the lack of a tax increase to cover the close to 2 trillion in deficit spending projected for 2026.
The remedy will be a class action lawsuit in which the plaintiffs will all get a 10% off their next purchase or a years worth of free credit reports and the lawyers will split the judgement among themselves.
Typically, various entities in the chain from manufacture to retail sale each absorb a portion of the cost. This includes the retailer who charges an amount necessary to make a profit, eating some of the cost itself as well. This is because most items are already being sold for as much as the market will bear (maximizing profits). Adding the entire cost of a tariff at the retail end would result in a decline in profit because fewer consumers will purchase the product. This would affect every entity in the chain, so they cooperate to reduce the effect of a tariff on the consumer. Nobody wants sales to plummet, as would happen if the entire cost of any tariff is passed to the consumer.
Roberts aka
Dick
More concerned about how zer looks than in jurisprudence
I don’t think the professor’s summary is correct. What is at play here is Art of the Deal: Go to the extreme, lose a little, what remains is more than sufficient with much less outrage than had the extreme not been pursued originally.
The professor overlooks that all other tariff authorities remain intact and available: The decision is narrow—it only blocks tariffs specifically under IEEPA. Tariffs imposed under longstanding trade laws like Section 232 (national security, e.g., on steel, aluminum, or other metals) and Section 301 (unfair trade practices, especially against China) are unaffected and stay in place. Administration officials and analysts have already signaled they plan to pivot quickly to these tools to reimpose similar (or adjusted) duties, keeping much of the trade pressure and revenue stream alive. This avoids a total collapse of his tariff strategy.
In short, this is mostly bad news for the core of his tariff-heavy economic plan, but he retains fallback options that could blunt the impact and allow him to continue aggressive trade policies. If more develops (like a Trump statement or follow-up actions), it could shift the picture to a positive outcome.
Trade deals take a lot longer
“Art of the Deal” is cope. He went all out because he wanted to. At best he’s left with a consolation prize for losing.
Your name reminds me of an old western insult – all hat, no cattle. In your case it is all hat, no common sense
If he had authority under other statutes to impose these tariffs he wouldn’t have pulled this stunt with the IEEPA in the first place. He did it only because there was no other statute that would have let him do what he wanted . Well, as everyone said at the time, this one didn’t either.
Either way, these tariffs were unlawful and the money has to be refunded. It’s stolen money. Even if he can find a statute that will allow him to reimpose the same tariffs that won’t retroactively make these ones lawful.
Why doesn’t the court strike down the spending of money WE DO NOT HAVE?
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/supreme-court-rules-tariffs
Correct, America has $38T LESS than no money, when does that get stopped?
Tariffs are law, PDJT followed the law. Kavanaugh et al are correct in their dissent statements. As for the traitors who think they know better I submit this: Lawyers define the world in their terms then forever argue about the meaning of those terms. This usually means nothing Normal Thinking People can easily see as basic common sense is definable as such, therefore open to all manner of interpretation under the so-called law.
We The People will suffer from this move that is designed to protect the Deep State scumbaggery and grifters…these bums WANT the current funding schemes, including the IRS…they believe WTP work for them.
He did NOT follow the law. And that is the court’s only legitimate concern.
You were delighted when the court struck down Biden’s and 0bama’s illegal measures. If you’re upset now only because it’s Trump then you’re spitting on the truth.
Oh, that’s (D)ifferent.
On what grounds could it strike that down? Congress has the authority to borrow money, and to order the president to spend it.
The SC has just screwed America
We actually was getting the debt down
People were making plans to
Build manufacturing here, tons of capital investment
I HATE ROBERTS and his 5 ignorant idiots
I am with you on Roberts. He has to go. Please include Amy Barrett on your list; she is an absolute disgrace and a slap in the face to President Trump. She is a typical Notre Dame faculty member.
The national debt was/is increasing regardless of tariffs. Federal revenue is NOT the issue, rather it is Federal spending well beyond the revenues. We spent about
$7 Trillion last year on revenue of about $5.2 Trillion for an annual deficit of $1.8 Trillion added to the national debt, now $38 Trillion+. Most projections show $2 Trillion ish in deficit spending through 2035, higher in the later years. We either make tough decisions and cut current year spending below a balanced budget or we’re in for a rough time sooner than most appreciate.
FWIW in 2032 the federal debt is gonna be well over $50 Trillion…. which is the same year the SSA trust fund will have had every $ it loaned the Treasury paid back aka the trust fund is exhausted…which means a roughly 25% cut to SSA retirement benefits across the board b/c SSA taxes will only support about 75% of the benefit payments.
Exactly…just when folks were feeling freedom to invest and build their businesses, and relief from asinine trade imbalance, etc, BECAUSE of PDJT, the Swamp drags us all back down through this abomination. Legal or not, as SCOTUS rats define it against all rationale, We The People will feel the pain once again. “Refunds”? Really? Beyond demented.
PDJT, with the backing of at least 80 million voters, should tell this “equal branch” to go pound sand (only harsher words).
So you don’t give a shit about the law or the constitution or even basic honesty. Every penny of that money was STOLEN. It must be refunded no matter what that does to the USA.
If he defies the law then it will be time for the second amendment. You would have been outraged if Biden or 0bama had defied the court. Now you call on Trump to do so. That’s disgusting.
Was we now? That’s a claim I’d like to see some evidence for given that, ya know… the deficit is exploding.
And many others had to scale back because the tariffs made things more expensive (which is the entire point of tariffs, btw). They haven’t “screwed” America. Tariffs were not some panacea that would have immanentized the Trumpain eschaton.
I hate you. You are the ignorant idiot here. The debt is none of the court’s concern. The law is. Trump had the government steal money from people, and now it will have to pay it back.
What is wrong with you Milhouse?
In any event, I still hold that the entire judiciary, including SCOTUS, local, state, and federal judges are not to be revered because they’re an absolute disgrace.
Hey, Roberts tell us one more time how Obamacare was a tax and therefore not unconstitutional, but a president’s attempt to save this country from drowning in trillions of dollars in debt is not an emergency?
yeah but the gop had its chance to repeal obamamacare
and it once again pissssed it away
obamacare is in fact illegal /immoral but thats only by our standards of maga
not by the leftists
Heh, I don’t know if anything is immoral by leftist standards. They have no morals.
true
thank you
Spot on…
The GOP has had several opportunities to implement a better solution to healthcare and health insurance than Obamacare – and UTTERLY FAILED TO DO IT. Too many politicians owned by “special interests” and caring more about getting reelected than doing their job.
Downvoters: Don’t be cowards – explain how I’m wrong.
The 0bamacare “mandate” was a tax. If you did not read Roberts’s decision then you have no right to comment on it. He went through every criterion that distinguishes a penalty from a tax and showed how under every one of them it was a tax and not a penalty.
In this case Trump simply did not have any statutory authority to impose those tariffs. He knew it, too. And he swore in every court that if he lost the money would be refunded, no big deal. Well, now he has to make good on that.
The GOP is going to lose the midterms badly at this rate
That’s exactly how I feel right now. If it were me, I would simply say thank you SCOTUS for your input, but just like Biden’s student loans, I am going to keep the tariffs going as a matter of national security…in other words f$!k off.
Then you would deserve to be removed and hung by your heels.
Biden did NOT disobey the ruling against him, and anyone who claims he did is a liar. And Trump can’t disobey this ruling either, for the same reason.
He can still impose those tariffs that some other statute allows, but he can’t use this statute, and that means he can’t reimpose the tariffs that he was only able to impose because of his false reading of this statute. Just as Biden could still forgive those loans that some other statute authorized him to, but he could not forgive the ones that only his false reading of that statute enabled him to.
This is a pretty stupid take 🤣 I mean come on fella, you’re getting the vapours because “we” lost this case? 🤔
I mean there is no rhyme or reason with thinking like this because every time a case doesn’t go the way we want you will be sitting here crying about losing the mid terms and there’s absolutely no reasonable way to tie this decision to democrats winning the midterms. I mean, that’s just not a “reasonable” position for any rational adult to be taking 🤣🤣
The gop midterm isn’t looking great. I doubt this has any bearing though.
They likely were going to lose before, and the arbitrary and capricious nature of the tariffs as an extension of Trump’s ego is to blame, not SCOTUS.
You’re accruing a record amount of downvotes in this thread, probably because your commentary is suspect.
Keep up the good work!
Was wondering where this one had got to. Seems the Democrat media will be cock a hoop tonight at the news 🙄
Not sure what you can do with a Supreme Court where pretty much every decision already has a 3-0 head start for Democrats 🤷♂️
But yeah, a decision that conservatives will have to suck up and deal with the resulting mess that is heading their way like a tsunami now everyone will want a refund 🤦🏼♂️
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/supreme-court-rules-tariffs
So the court wants us to refund the money now?
175 billion dollars?
No, the Court did not address refunds, which overtly allows the door open for lawsuits to proceed in that direction.
How did we get to the point where an unelected judicial branch and federal judges in particular run the country and the executive branch is worthless?
gop allowed this
why didnt they stop the creation of the fed or its repeal?
why didnt they stop or repeal that commie loving fdr and its alphabet soup welfare?
why do we continue to subsidize farmers?
FDR had enough govt power to pack the court if they didn’t pass his legislation. It was truly an unbalanced time where a significant majority voting bloc got extremely selfish and didn’t care about the repercussions.
Hoover didn’t want to raid the Treasury and Americans bought the Marie Antoinette characterization of him. They went all in with the guy claiming to share the cake, consequences be damned.
yeah
and look where the f we are now
9 11 and the successful islamization of nyc and others
Look I don’t disagree with you that the gop has sucked it up but you can’t blame the FDR legacy on them.
They were literally powerless to stop it. 2/3 majority in both houses and progressive POTUS.
The judges that wanted to stop it would only be able to delay it and potentially give a diluted lefty court to the country forever.
The “switch in time that saved nine” is a myth. It never happened. That one justice changed his mind about the law before FDR came up with his court-packing plan. He cast his vote before FDR’s announcement. The whole idea that he changed his vote because of that announcement is pure fiction.
The old rules of judicial deference are currently being rewritten in real-time. Today’s 6-3 SCOTUS ruling isn’t just a loss for the administration; it is a fundamental shift in how the court views the separation of powers.
How so? IMO this was in a way both a close question and an easy call.
The statute the Trump Admin relied on doesn’t specifically mention tariffs as part of the power delegated to the Executive. The previous statute that the current one replaced was used in the same way by Nixon. The current statute also allows a total embargo so it isn’t a.stretch to argue that imposing something lesser like a tariff is implied.
The majority didn’t buy it and I can’t really blame them without becoming a hypocrite about wanting the Judiciary to stop creating things that aren’t there and confine themselves to applying the text of the statute within the Constitutional framework on a go/no go basis aka textulism.
There was never any rule of judicial deference to the president in interpreting statutes. And there is no shift whatsoever in this ruling. The separation of powers remains exactly as it was; the constitution says the judicial power, which is the power to say what the law is, is vested only in the federal courts. If the president is misinterpreting a statute, it is the courts’ place and their duty to call him to account.
Chief, it was not a close question. The statute authorizes regulation, not taxes. A total embargo is regulation; a tax is not. The best proof is that it authorizes regulation of both imports and exports. But if “regulate” in this case means “tax” then it would be unconstitutional, because the constitution forbids any tax on exports, so Congress can’t authorize the president to impose one.
And no, Nixon didn’t rely on the TWEA for his tariffs. Which were illegal, and would have been struck down if they hadn’t already been lifted anyway.
Yes, all the STOLEN money will have to be refunded, when the victims sue for it.
The judicial branch’s JOB is to keep the government to the law. That is the job the constitution specifically gives it, and it’s not SUPPOSED to be elected. When the president BREAKS THE LAW the courts have the duty to bring him to account for it.
it really doesnt allow him to do so ( ieepa) but
this goes right back to my decades old hatred for having allowed EO in the first place
it not only runs a muck of congressional duties
it allows congress to get paid while not making the tough calls
and if thats not bad enough
it allows the fjbs of the world to do very anti american things
trumps was a pro maga position on the tariffs but the america first agenda is not what the Illness omars have in mind
and they run the country:
Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) revealed at a townhall meeting on Wednesday that Democrats don’t just want to abolish the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), but they are actually planning how to dismantle the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) entirely.
“What I will say is that there is an easier conversation happening today than six, seven years ago when I got to Congress, about what we need to do with ICE, which is to abolish it,” Omar told her audience during the townhall meeting.
breitbart
The intellectual Pygmy can tell her useful idiots what ever she wants. The reality is that before any of that can happen they’ve got to actually take control of the House and the Presidency first. The first isn’t guaranteed and the second is a long, long way from happening again.
agree but we have had control and we let it go
we have been tilting left left left
for well over a hundred years now
and now places like ny/nyc/chi etc etc are pretty much fullblown left of left
Considering there was no remedy and there are concerns about the “mess” this will create.
Would a possible response by the administration be fashioning a rebate to all US citizen taxpayers? Rationale being that if it’s the taxpaying citizens that bear the ultimate burden of a tariff, they should receive the remedy.
If the tariff revenues amounted to around $165B that might come to around $1000 to each citizen tax filer.
If this requires an act of Congress, it could be made the law that this will satisfy any and all claims for relief regardless of origin.
No, that is not possible. The unlawful tax was collected from the plaintiffs, and they can now sue to get back the money that was STOLEN from them. Whether they managed to pass the cost on to their customers is simply irrelevant.
farmers get tax money to not grow crops
or not grow “too many” of a certain crop etc
if the farmers stop farming what would actually happen:
panic that we wouldnt/couldnt etc
but the farmers would then lose their income so they would have a tough choice to make…no income or hold out for tax subsidies
meanwhile can in fact eat and /or learn how to “Farm”
and then the corporations would hire those that want to work the fields etc…like we already have
yet we continue to “panic” or more accurately allow the politicians to make us believe we need to panic..therefore we panic
when there is no need to and the solution is right there as I stated
dont forget how fond we are of saying:
give a man a fish
he eats today
teach him to fish
he eats forever
Give a man a fish and you will feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will spend thousands of dollars on equipment he will use once or twice.
Build a man a fire, and he will be warm for a day.
Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
lol
By Jingo!
if he or his family is hungry he will continue to use that equipment
Unless he is a liberal, then he will wait for someone else to feed his family
Another bad decision, but that’s not so surprising. It just means he’s not allowed the fine control IEEPA allowed. There are other tools available and if those are gone, there’s always embargos.
Yep, SC has removed the fine control IEEPA allowed. Now it’s full steam ahead with blunt force. Messy, but legal authority.
We wanted to use surgical strikes, but SC rules that only carpet bombing is allowed. So be it.
Likely PDJT has a contingency at the ready. Let’s see what Bessent says.
It may be unliked… but is it really a BAD decision?
After all, allowing it for this administrations means it would allow it for any future ones. So ask yourself how another Biden-like, autopen puppet, with haters of bonafide US trade friends, might abuse this same tool.
they do as they please
the court wouldnt even consider the pa>2020 illegal voting issue
the courts are in fear for their safety as the know the lefty mob is out there
This decision is a disgrace.
Apart from the actual legal pretzel Roberts had to twist himself into – this issue was the very DEFINITION of requiring ‘expedited process’.
The fact that the Supreme Court screwed around for a year, with the tariffs still in place, issuing dozens of other decisions before FINALLY ruling that the tariffs in place for a year couldn’t be in place, is a disgrace.
Furthermore, they didn’t even bother to actually say what remedies are necessary now that they’ve been struck down!
For a YEAR the President has been conducting negotiations, diplomacy and foreign policy with these tariffs as the basis, and now they say, ‘whoops they’re all gone’. Now, every single country will simply REFUSE to negotiate anything until the Supreme Court finally deigns to hear the issue.
If you were going to do this, you needed to suspend them from the start, and rule quickly!
This Court under Roberts is a joke, but not a funny one.
but when djt did this I/we? knew it wasnt going to pass the scotus and to some degree correctly so as the congress needs to do its job which it wont b/c its not being forced to
so they let the EO flourish and the scotus to decide
we getting f’d from all sides and after trump we are toast
It’s the dissenters who twisted themselves into pretzels. The decision is obviously correct.
And it was Trump who insisted throughout this process that there should be no injunction because if the tariffs are eventually struck down they can simply be refunded. The courts accepted that argument; otherwise they would have enjoined the tariffs months ago. Trump can’t turn around now and say we can’t afford to refund what we stole.
The rest of the world knew very well that the case was going on, and that Trump was always likely to lose it. This was already built in to their negotiating positions.
Doesn’t matter, PDJT just invoked his contingency plan…SCOTUS now has no say and the Deep State et al can’t undo his action that likely will collect MORE tariff revenue. Good.
I haz a question. Or rather a few questions.
Is the term “regulate . . . importation” defined anywhere in the IEEPA? Because if the term is not defined, then how can any executive action be authorized? Wouldn’t the majority opinion apply to any presidential action that isn’t specifically authorized?
I haven’t see the decision, but does the majority identify anything in the IEEPA that restrains executive options to specific actions?
“Regulate” means the same thing here that it means in literally every other place it’s used. “Regulate” never means “tax”. A full ban on imports from a country would be a regulation. But a tax on such imports is not. If Congress meant to allow the president to tax imports it would have said so.
And if the power to “regulate imports and exports” meant the power to tax them, then it would be unconstitutional. Congress can’t tax exports.
That is simply not true. Nixon did NOT levy those tariffs under the TWEA. As Alan Wolf, the U.S. Department of Treasury’s international trade lawyer who drafted Nixon’s proclamation, and defended it at the GATT, recalls, Nixon specifically refused to rely on the TWEA, but on international trade agreements.
The TWEA argument was never brought up until after the Customs Court found against the president, and it went to the appeals court. Then the government pulled this TWEA argument out of its rear end, and the appeals court reluctantly bought it, almost explicitly saying it was a one-time-only decision, made only because the tariffs had already been lifted so their legality was mostly moot, and the only consequence of striking them down would be to require the government to refund all the money it had illegally taken. The TWEA argument was just a fig leaf to avoid those refunds and save the government billions of dollars. But had the tariffs still been in effect the appeals court would have almost certainly struck them down.
Read the post. This is a first-hand account by the person most directly involved, and thus who knows exactly what happened.
Leave a Comment