Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Supreme Court strikes down Trump tariffs, rebuking president's signature economic policy [View all]LetMyPeopleVote
(177,634 posts)33. Deadline Legal Blog-Supreme Court rules Trump doesn't have the tariff authority he claimed
The justices expressed skepticism in November that the administration could impose sweeping tariffs under a federal law granting emergency powers.
Supreme Court rules Trump doesnât have the tariff authority he claimed
— Anti-Trumpism (@forabettertomorrow.bsky.social) 2026-02-20T15:17:44.990Z
www.ms.now/deadline-whi...
https://www.ms.now/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/supreme-court-tariffs-trump-ruling
The Supreme Court ruled Friday that President Donald Trump doesnt have the tariff authority he claimed, in a decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts.
The ruling addressed a key Donald Trump policy as the high court considers the scope of presidential power across several cases this term. The courts Republican-appointed majority has broadly empowered the Republican president but has occasionally checked him.
The justices agreed in September to consider the tariff issue on an expedited basis, granting review in two separate cases, both of which the administration lost in the lower courts. One of them came through a specialized trade and appeals court, and the other came through a general federal court in Washington.
When the high court heard oral arguments in November, the justices sounded skeptical of the administrations position that Trump was authorized to impose the sweeping tariffs under a federal law called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).......
In the case called Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, the Federal Circuit ruled that Trump overstepped his authority in attempting to rely on IEEPA. The statute neither mentions tariffs (or any of its synonyms) nor has procedural safeguards that contain clear limits on the Presidents power to impose tariffs, the circuit court wrote in a divided ruling that split the court 7-4, though not strictly along the party lines of the presidents who appointed the judges.
In the other case, Learning Resources v. Trump, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras, an Obama appointee, wrote that if Congress had intended to delegate to the President the power of taxing ordinary commerce from any country at any rate for virtually any reason, it would have had to say so. He wrote that no other president has ever purported to impose tariffs under IEEPA.
The ruling addressed a key Donald Trump policy as the high court considers the scope of presidential power across several cases this term. The courts Republican-appointed majority has broadly empowered the Republican president but has occasionally checked him.
The justices agreed in September to consider the tariff issue on an expedited basis, granting review in two separate cases, both of which the administration lost in the lower courts. One of them came through a specialized trade and appeals court, and the other came through a general federal court in Washington.
When the high court heard oral arguments in November, the justices sounded skeptical of the administrations position that Trump was authorized to impose the sweeping tariffs under a federal law called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).......
In the case called Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, the Federal Circuit ruled that Trump overstepped his authority in attempting to rely on IEEPA. The statute neither mentions tariffs (or any of its synonyms) nor has procedural safeguards that contain clear limits on the Presidents power to impose tariffs, the circuit court wrote in a divided ruling that split the court 7-4, though not strictly along the party lines of the presidents who appointed the judges.
In the other case, Learning Resources v. Trump, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras, an Obama appointee, wrote that if Congress had intended to delegate to the President the power of taxing ordinary commerce from any country at any rate for virtually any reason, it would have had to say so. He wrote that no other president has ever purported to impose tariffs under IEEPA.
I listened to the oral arguments and did not think that this would be that close of a decision but this is a very divided opinion which is why it took so long to come down.
Link to tweet

Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
5 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
87 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Supreme Court strikes down Trump tariffs, rebuking president's signature economic policy [View all]
BumRushDaShow
Friday
OP
There is another law that allows a president to impose tariffs in an "emergency"
Fiendish Thingy
Friday
#13
I would be surprised if that "limited strike" didn't happen this weekend
BumRushDaShow
Yesterday
#86
Like other Republicans they aim more towards the middle of his cheeks and it involves their tongues more than their lips
cstanleytech
Friday
#7
So, they gave him the idea that he had immunity, and now it's their privilege to pull back
Baitball Blogger
Friday
#5
For Alito and Thomas to dissent is obvious, but for Kavanaugh to do so is really telling
Prairie Gates
Friday
#8
No surprise that the nazi enablers, alito, thomas, and kavanaugh disented. They don't believe in
lostincalifornia
Friday
#11
Deadline Legal Blog-Supreme Court rules Trump doesn't have the tariff authority he claimed
LetMyPeopleVote
Friday
#33
Roberts delivered the opinion/judgment of the Court. Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh dissent.🚨
riversedge
Friday
#35
Some tariffs were imposed because of 'attitude' of foreign leaders, or judicial actions of nations TSF
wiggs
Friday
#37
Lutnik and his sons (and other Wall Streeters) will make "astronomical sums" from this SC decision.
sop
Friday
#43
I honestly don't believe that the companies deserve to get much if any money back.
cstanleytech
Friday
#47
Trump should have to pay refunds out of his personal fortune to all of us.
Linda ladeewolf
Friday
#48
The class actions where the lawyers pocket a substantial portion and the plaintiffs get a token amount?
MichMan
Friday
#73
Columbia didn't pay the tariffs; you did....to the federal government. Columbia was disenfranchised by the tariffs
NowsTheTime
Friday
#78
I can't say for sure I guess .....and no, we will never get the money back, Federal gov't collected it.
NowsTheTime
Friday
#81
It looks like the political hacks on this "court," if we call this arm of legal....
NNadir
Friday
#57
Trump will announce that SCOTUS is the deep state & should be dissolved, in 5, 4, 3, ...
aggiesal
Friday
#62
So half of the republican members of the Supreme Court still support the Constitution
thought crime
Friday
#77