The SCOTUS Chronicles

[Jackalope]

Oh idk.  They're persuadable on whether trans folks, black people, or democrats in general have such a right.

You forgot hippies and other dope smokers.

[The Grand Nudger]

You forgot hippies and other dope smokers.

Ah yes, antifa.

[Fireball]

You forgot hippies and other dope smokers.

Ah yes, antifa.

Yeah, they're plotting the overthrow peacing out under a tree.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The Supreme Court cast aside the bulk of President Trump’s sweeping tariffs Friday, obliterating a canon of his economic strategy in ruling that his use of an emergency statute to remake global trade was unlawful.

The decision invalidates what the Trump administration called the president’s most significant economic and foreign policy initiative of his second term, a result Trump has warned could foist financial ruin upon the United States.

The justices rejected Trump’s expanded use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) in imposing tariffs on nearly every country. The 1970s-era law allows the president to “regulate” imports when necessary to respond to national emergencies that pose an “unusual and extraordinary” threat.

“We claim no special competence in matters of economics or foreign affairs,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote.

“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.”

Trump is the first president to attempt to invoke the IEEPA to impose tariffs in its nearly 50-year history.

The decision does not provide guidance for how refunds will work, a battle that lies ahead in the lower courts. As of January 2026, the U.S. has brought in $289 billion in revenue from Trump’s tariff policy, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-bat...y-tariffs/

Honestly, I'm surprised that SCOTUS is not rubber-stamping Trump's tarriffs. Plus, their decision in Trump v US means that he can flout their ruling and no one can do anything about it. It's therefore a bit late in the day to suddenly stand up to him.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The Supreme Court cast aside the bulk of President Trump’s sweeping tariffs Friday, obliterating a canon of his economic strategy in ruling that his use of an emergency statute to remake global trade was unlawful.

The decision invalidates what the Trump administration called the president’s most significant economic and foreign policy initiative of his second term, a result Trump has warned could foist financial ruin upon the United States.  

The justices rejected Trump’s expanded use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) in imposing tariffs on nearly every country. The 1970s-era law allows the president to “regulate” imports when necessary to respond to national emergencies that pose an “unusual and extraordinary” threat.  

“We claim no special competence in matters of economics or foreign affairs,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote.

“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.”

Trump is the first president to attempt to invoke the IEEPA to impose tariffs in its nearly 50-year history.  

The decision does not provide guidance for how refunds will work, a battle that lies ahead in the lower courts. As of January 2026, the U.S. has brought in $289 billion in revenue from Trump’s tariff policy, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-bat...y-tariffs/

Honestly, I'm surprised that SCOTUS is not rubber-stamping Trump's tarriffs. Plus, their decision in Trump v US means that he can flout their ruling and no one can do anything about it. It's therefore a bit late in the day to suddenly stand up to him.

From the article:

“In essence, the Court today concludes that the President checked the wrong statutory box by relying on IEEPA rather than another statute to impose these tariffs,” Kavanaugh added.  

I’m not sure that it’s within the purview of the Court to give hints on how to get around the ruling.

Boru

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

@Thumpalumpacus

Honestly, I'm surprised that SCOTUS is not rubber-stamping Trump's tarriffs. Plus, their decision in Trump v US means that he can flout their ruling and no one can do anything about it. It's therefore a bit late in the day to suddenly stand up to him.

Actually, he only enjoys immunity from from prosecution for the illegality of imposing those tariffs for those reasons. He could still be impeached and removed for it, or Congress could wake the fuck up and claw back the authority to impose tariffs.

Boru

[Angrboda]

In his response to the ruling, Trump faulted Roberts, Barrett, and Gorsuch for being insufficiently loyal. Loyalty is the only thing Trump cares about.

[Angrboda]

It appears that Trump is preparing to shoot himself in the foot. He announced that he's going to implement a 10% across the board tariff under section 122 for five months. His supposed plan is to then apply those tariffs under section 301. However, section 301 requires that the tariffs be justified by unfair trade practices. Applying his tariffs across the board strongly undermines any argument that individual tariffs under section 301 are motivated by unfair trade, rather than simply something the administration wants to do regardless of justification.

[Thumpalumpacus]

He could still be impeached and removed for it [...]

Not without a Democrat supermajority. The GOP has already demonstrated that they will tolerate any behavior from Trump so long as his voters turn out for them.

[Thumpalumpacus]

President Trump slammed the Supreme Court justices who struck down his tariffs on Friday, which included two justices he appointed, 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 told reporters at a White House press briefing he held in the aftermath of the momentous opinion.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administrat...-justices/