Business Insider"
The Supreme Court struck down a chunk of President Donald Trump's sweeping tariff policy on Friday, finding a new limit to the expansive presidential powers he has sought. The 6-3 decision centered on the tariffs Trump justified under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a national security law that allows the president to regulate economic activity during emergencies. Those IEEPA-justified tariffs have been one of Trump's most powerful weapons in his efforts to renegotiate trade agreements around the globe. They include Trump's so-called "Liberation Day" tariffs, announced in April, which are at least 10% on nearly every country in the world."
News broke on Bloomberg around 10 AM Friday. It is being reported by other major news organizations - most paywalled. For perspective, it's likely at least some tariffs will continue using different legal routes. By no means fully resolved.
Comments
I have no intution here (aside from the fact that Uncle Sam / Uncle Donald owes a lot of people a lot of money)
Edit: . https://aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2026/2/20/trump-tariffs-live-us-supreme-court-rules-against-sweeping-global-tariffs?update=4326856
Impact on markets? Little today. How will increased heated political rhetoric and finger-pointing from politicians and financial interests potentially affected by the ruling weigh on markets? On the surface, lower or fewer tariffs should help U.S. companies that sell a lot of imported goods (Walmart, Amazon)..
I've long ago given up any rational view of markets. Herd mentality moves assets from one asset class to another. In the meantime, get ready for the equivalent of a rare (sure to be overhyped) cosmic collision Tuesday when Trump delivers his State of the Union. The SC justices normally are seated in the front row. I wouldn't blame them if they walk out. Maybe place a short term wager on CNN, Fox, MSNBC?
Nevertheless, the Supreme Court decision to strike down the IEEPA-based tariffs is a welcome development.
There was broad executive overreach—these tariffs were obviously illegal.
Essentially, he gets a mulligan - he gets off the hook.
Or is that too rational of a response to be expected from this specific individual?
Edits:. More info on $130 billions refund - messy.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/tariff-ruling-kicks-off-messy-162117304.html
It is a 6-3 decision with Kavanaugh, Thomas, and Alito voted against the decision.
So, I doubt what you propose is a realistic possibility.
If there is an opportunity to take credit where none is due, this guy will run with it.
"The majority found that it’s 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."
"“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."
Are these guys even playing in the same ball game or do they all get a different rule book when appointed to the Supreme Court?
Justice Neil Gorsuch joined the majority in striking down the Trump administration's sweeping global tariffs. Gorsuch issued a significant concurring opinion, emphasizing that the power to tax and impose tariffs resides exclusively with Congress under the Constitution.
Key Statements from Gorsuch's Concurrence
Congressional Authority: Gorsuch emphasized that the Constitution vests taxing and tariff powers solely in Congress to ensure deliberation and prevent executive overreach.
The Major Questions Doctrine: He argued that the administration failed to provide "clear statutory authority" for the tariffs, invoking the Major Questions Doctrine.
"Bulwark of Liberty": In his opinion, Gorsuch described the legislative process as a "bulwark of liberty," suggesting even critics would eventually appreciate the constitutional safeguards.
Warning Against Executive Overreach: During arguments, he expressed concern that allowing unilateral tariffs under the IEEPA could permit "tariffs on virtually any imports for any emergency".
"The 6-3 decision, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, removes a diplomatic tool that Trump
has aggressively wielded to remake U.S. trade deals and collect tens of billions of dollars from companies
importing foreign goods. The ruling didn’t address whether the government will have to pay back
the tariff revenue it already has collected."
"It is the first time the Supreme Court has definitively struck down one of Trump’s second-term policies.
In other areas, the court’s conservative majority has so far granted Trump broad latitude
to deploy executive power in novel ways, but a majority of justices—three conservatives and three liberals—
said he went too far in enacting his most sweeping tariffs without clear authorization from Congress."
"Until Trump, no president had invoked the emergency-powers law as a basis to impose tariffs.
Three different lower courts ruled the tariffs unlawful, including a specialized federal appeals court
of national jurisdiction that said the emergency-powers law didn’t authorize tariffs of the magnitude Trump imposed."
"The tariffs before the Supreme Court constituted a large majority of Trump’s duties.
Over the next decade, the tariffs Trump imposed through his claims of emergency powers
were expected to raise about $1.5 trillion, according to the Tax Foundation, representing 70% of Trump’s second-term tariffs."
This is the nature of governments - leaders negotiate tentative deals that they think would go through, but those countries' parliaments/legislatures must ratify them.
This applies to US as well where several deals negotiated were left unratified and have no effects.
"President Trump is planning to invoke new trade authorities in response to the Supreme Court’s
ruling overturning his sweeping tariffs, according to two people familiar with his plans,
potentially including a new, across-the-board tariff on U.S. trading partners."
"The administration has been preparing for months for the possibility that the court would rule
against the president and developed contingency plans as a result."
"One of the tools under discussion is Section 301, a portion of law that allows the U.S. government
to investigate unfair trade practices and impose tariffs accordingly.
Mr. Trump used Section 301 to hit China with tariffs during his first term."
"Another statute, known as Section 122, allows the president to enact a baseline tariff of up to 15 percent
on all countries to address issues related to the trade deficit, though the taxes on imports
may only stay in place for 150 days unless Congress votes to extend them."
definitively struck down one of the president's second-term policies.
The court previously granted the president broad latitude to exercize executive power.
Is he really suggesting that it's okay to break the law if it leads to a supposedly good outcome? If not, then what's the point of this observation?
Most people support "the ends justify the means" to some extent. Who has not told a "little white lie"? But IMHO this sort of thinking in a legal opinion is beyond the pale.
"Let there be light." ---God.
"Let there be tariffs." ---Orange Criminal.
This will be just another example of trump thinking that no rules, Constitutional or otherwise, apply to him. Only to everybody else.
Start watching at 48.10.
Justice Kavanaugh also noted that the administration had used the leverage of tariffs to enter into key trading deals with other nations. Mr. Trump, he wrote, “helped facilitate trade deals worth trillions of dollars — including with foreign nations from China to the United Kingdom to Japan, and more.
Is he really suggesting that it's okay to break the law if it leads to a supposedly good outcome? If not, then what's the point of this observation?
Most people support "the ends justify the means" to some extent. Who has not told a "little white lie"? But IMHO this sort of thinking in a legal opinion is beyond the pale.
@msf: Exactly, sir.
https://independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/eu-anti-coercion-instrument-greenland-trump-b2903998.html