SCOTUS Decides Tariffs

"President Trump slammed the Supreme Court justices who struck down his tariffs on Friday, which included two justices he nominated, saying he was “ashamed of certain members of the court.”


“They’re very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution. It’s my opinion that the court has been swayed by foreign interests and a political movement that is far smaller than people would ever think. It’s a small movement,” Trump


https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5747841-trump-criticizes-court-justices/

I KNEW Clarence and Sammy would rule in Trump's favor. If it had been Biden instead of Trump, they would have been their proverbial "originalists" that noted the tariffs issue, as per the constitution, resides in the purview of the congress in this case, and would have sided with the majority opinion.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

"President Trump slammed the Supreme Court justices who struck down his tariffs on Friday, which included two justices he nominated, saying he was “ashamed of certain members of the court.”


“They’re very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution. It’s my opinion that the court has been swayed by foreign interests and a political movement that is far smaller than people would ever think. It’s a small movement,” Trump


https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5747841-trump-criticizes-court-justices/

I KNEW Clarence and Sammy would rule in Trump's favor. If it had been Biden instead of Trump, they would have been their proverbial "originalists" that noted the tariffs issue, as per the constitution, resides in the purview of the congress in this case, and would have sided with the majority opinion.

I predict Trump will double down on the stupidity and declare that the DOJ needs to investigate those unpatriotic justices.

Originally Posted by Brian McFarland

I predict Trump will double down on the stupidity and declare that the DOJ needs to investigate those unpatriotic justices.

Well, Trump just said the justices who voted against his tariffs will still be "barely" invited to his state of the union address so your comment may be a bit premature. On the other hand, "JD" Vance just said the ruling represents "lawlessness from the court." So, you're spot-on!

"JD"s exact words:    “Today, the Supreme Court decided that Congress, despite giving the president the ability to ‘regulate imports’, didn’t actually mean it,” Vance posted on the social platform X. “This is lawlessness from the Court, plain and simple. And its only effect will be to make it harder for the president to protect American industries and supply chain resiliency.”

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5748269-vance-supreme-court-tariff-ruling/

PS" How "JD" arrived at his butt-backwards, upside down meaning of the SCOTUS decision typifies that seen in his administration so, Brian, look for a SCOTUS detention center near you soon!...

"In the long run, the court might have saved him from himself — at least politically."

"Some Republicans are outright praising the decision, and you can bet more are happy behind the scenes."


"It was fortuitous that the Supreme Court’s decision came Friday. Just 90 minutes before it landed, the Bureau of Economic Analysis announced the gross domestic product had grown at just a 1.4% annualized rate in the fourth quarter. That made 2025 the second-worst year for GDP growth since 2016."

"Last year was also one of the weakest jobs years in decades. And there is, of course, the inflation that finally dropped a bit in January but remains stubborn."


"In other words, the stock market aside, the economy isn’t doing great."

https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/21/politics/tariffs-ruling-supreme-court-trump-gop

Trump, of course, can't help himself and immediately raised all global tariffs to 10% and then, raging further, increased it ti 15% which he can do for another 150 days after which it requires congressional reauthorization. That's going to be interesting, especially for the Republicans in congress...

Originally Posted by Brian McFarland

I predict Trump will double down on the stupidity and declare that the DOJ needs to investigate those unpatriotic justices.

You get a look into how Trump's mind works when he says things like, "I'm ashamed of certain members of the court. Absolutely ashamed for not having the courage to do what's right for our country." He seems to believe that the justices should unquestioningly uphold his illegal, irrational, and unjustified tariffs simply because they are what Trump thinks is right for the country. It's just like when he criticized Mike Pence for not having the "courage" to steal the 2020 election, "...to protect our country and Constitution." Midterms, get here faster, please, and please have an outcome that will ultimately start to hold this man accountable.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

I KNEW Clarence and Sammy would rule in Trump's favor. If it had been Biden instead of Trump, they would have been their proverbial "originalists" that noted the tariffs issue, as per the constitution, resides in the purview of the congress in this case, and would have sided with the majority opinion.

I think this is a strong and proper separation of powers ruling. Regarding Clarence and Sammy, Rod, I only have one thing to add. This case is not unlike the student loan forgiveness cases where Biden clearly overstepped his authority and the court reined him in.

In the student loan cases, the three liberals on the court supported Biden‘s “creative” reading of the scope of executive authority under the appropriate statutes.   the three liberals on the court supported Biden‘s illegal power grab.  of course, Clarence and Sammy were in the majority that time appropriately arguing for a limitation on executive authority. The liberals on the court and Clarence/Sammy flipped in this case, Gorsuch called them to task in a separate opinion for their inconsistency.

So, in this one instance, if you want to call Clarence, Sammy, Keegan, Sotomayor, Ketanji-Brown, and Kavanaugh “political hacks” for their flip-flop on very similar executive authority cases. I am not going to argue with you.   You gotta call ‘em all out though.

Here is a good summary of the various coalitions that formed within this case. Much better than the stuff you’ll read in the popular press.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/02/a-breakdown-of-the-courts-tariff-decision/

Originally Posted by James Brown

I think this is a strong and proper separation of powers ruling. Regarding Clarence and Sammy, Rod, I only have one thing to add. This case is not unlike the student loan forgiveness cases where Biden clearly overstepped his authority and the court reined him in.

In the student loan cases, the three liberals on the court supported Biden‘s “creative” reading of the scope of executive authority under the appropriate statutes.   the three liberals on the court supported Biden‘s illegal power grab.  of course, Clarence and Sammy were in the majority that time appropriately arguing for a limitation on executive authority. The liberals on the court and Clarence/Sammy flipped in this case, Gorsuch called them to task in a separate opinion for their inconsistency.

So, in this one instance, if you want to call Clarence, Sammy, Keegan, Sotomayor, Ketanji-Brown, and Kavanaugh “political hacks” for their flip-flop on very similar executive authority cases. I am not going to argue with you.   You gotta call ‘em all out though.

This case is nothing like the student loan case decided by SCOTUS:
 
Key Legal Reasoning of the Dissent (Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, Jackson):
"Lack of Standing: The dissent argued that the state of Missouri failed to show it was directly injured by the plan, noting that the state entity, MOHELA, is separate from the state government.
Clear Statutory Authority: They argued that the HEROES Act specifically gives the Secretary of Education broad, "sweeping" authority to manage student loans during emergencies, and that "modifying" the loans to include forgiveness falls within this power.
Misapplication of the Major Questions Doctrine: Justice Kagan argued that the majority was applying a "made-up" doctrine to invalidate a policy they simply disagreed with, rather than a genuine case of statutory ambiguity.
Separation of Powers: The dissenters argued that the majority was overstepping its judicial role and "exceeding its proper limited role in our nation's governance" by overriding the combined actions of the executive and legislative branches.
Contextual Interpretation: They emphasized that the COVID-19 pandemic was precisely the type of "national emergency" the 2003 HEROES Act was intended to cover."
SCOTUSblog

In the tariff case, also as per SCOTUSblog:

"Justice Thomas separately added that "neither statutory text nor the Constitution provide a basis for ruling against the President".    

(That's plainly wrong and all he had to do is read the constitution before making such an asinine  statement) .

"Broad Interpretation of IEEPA: The dissenters argued that the phrase "regulate... importation" in IEEPA (International Emergency Economic Powers Act) authorizes the president to impose tariffs, which they described as a "traditional and common tool" to manage imports during national emergencies, similar to quotas or embargoes."

(What "national emergency"??? There is no nation emergency as claimed by Trump).

"Text, History, and Precedent: Kavanaugh’s dissent, supported by Thomas and Alito, stated that as a matter of text, history, and precedent, the tariffs were clearly lawful."

(Once again, plainly wrong by merely reading the constitution which reserves the power on tariffs to congress.)

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

This case is nothing like the student loan case decided by SCOTUS:
 
Key Legal Reasoning of the Dissent (Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, Jackson):
"Lack of Standing: The dissent argued that the state of Missouri failed to show it was directly injured by the plan, noting that the state entity, MOHELA, is separate from the state government.
Clear Statutory Authority: They argued that the HEROES Act specifically gives the Secretary of Education broad, "sweeping" authority to manage student loans during emergencies, and that "modifying" the loans to include forgiveness falls within this power.
Misapplication of the Major Questions Doctrine: Justice Kagan argued that the majority was applying a "made-up" doctrine to invalidate a policy they simply disagreed with, rather than a genuine case of statutory ambiguity.
Separation of Powers: The dissenters argued that the majority was overstepping its judicial role and "exceeding its proper limited role in our nation's governance" by overriding the combined actions of the executive and legislative branches.
Contextual Interpretation: They emphasized that the COVID-19 pandemic was precisely the type of "national emergency" the 2003 HEROES Act was intended to cover."
SCOTUSblog

In the tariff case, also as per SCOTUSblog:

"Justice Thomas separately added that "neither statutory text nor the Constitution provide a basis for ruling against the President".    

(That's plainly wrong and all he had to do is read the constitution before making such an asinine  statement) .

"Broad Interpretation of IEEPA: The dissenters argued that the phrase "regulate... importation" in IEEPA (International Emergency Economic Powers Act) authorizes the president to impose tariffs, which they described as a "traditional and common tool" to manage imports during national emergencies, similar to quotas or embargoes."

(What "national emergency"??? There is no nation emergency as claimed by Trump).

"Text, History, and Precedent: Kavanaugh’s dissent, supported by Thomas and Alito, stated that as a matter of text, history, and precedent, the tariffs were clearly lawful."

(Once again, plainly wrong by merely reading the constitution which reserves the power on tariffs to congress.)

You are simply wrong. Each case involves a president interpreting a statute to give him authority that is beyond the most reasonable interpretation of the statute. The major cases doctrine is the same in each instance. The separation of powers questions are identical.

Originally Posted by James Brown

You are simply wrong. Each case involves a president interpreting a statute to give him authority that is beyond the most reasonable interpretation of the statute. The major cases doctrine is the same in each instance. The separation of powers questions are identical.

Ok, you're right as I looked into it a bit more and beyond that in the SCOTUS blog. HOWEVER, "The Supreme Court did not overrule tariffs. They merely overruled a particular use of IEPPA tariffs," Trump said. 
https://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-overturn-trump-tariffs-biden-student-loan-forgiveness-2026-2

Now, go argue with Trump!

PS: It is axiomatic that Clarence and Sammy are still hacks...