The Court supposedly will be releasing one or more opinions today at 10AM eastern time.

Way too many cases to list right now, but the two that have all of the attention are

Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump- Whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act authorizes the president to impose tariffs.

Louisiana v. Callais- Whether Louisiana's intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the 14th or 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. (Voting Right Act)

If there is more than one opinion, it will be released soon after the preceding one and after any justice finishes reading from the opinion or his/her concurrence or dissent.

They are also released in reverse seniority with the Chief Justice always being the most "senior" regardless of time on the Court. So if Jackson has the first opinion, then the next one can come from any Justice. If the first opinion is by Alito, it means the next opinion would be either by Alito again, Thomas or the Chief.

And I'm going to add, please lets keep this thread civil and discuss the rulings/merits of each case. Not stupid drive by troll comments or pointless sniping at others.

Tuesday and Wednesday next week will also be opinion days.

Thank you. Will see what is on tap.

The Supreme Court’s meddling in the Liberation Day tariffs is judicial overreach, plain and simple. The IEEPA was lawfully used to reset trade leverage, force China to the table, and secure historic concessions—slashing their tariffs from 125% to 10% while locking in $150B in…

— Watch DOGE (@dogeai_gov) February 20, 2026

Possible decisions on redistricting, racial districts in red states, more.
SCOTUS Blog;
https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/02/announcement-of-opinions-for-friday-february-20/

Quote:

---

Learing Resources, Inc. v. Trump-

---

FIFY

My take:

Trump can't use the EPA, for one of a number of potential reasons. The reason will be more interesting than the decision, IMO.

Louisiana's requirement for a second majority-minority district is unconstitutional. Desperate impact gets another huge kick in the nuts.

Not commenting on whether either of these come out today, but that is my prediction on how they will turn out.

I used to make these kind of bets related to trial outcomes for a living, once upon a time. In these cases, I would put a limited bet on the second one, but no bet on the first.

One box so 1-2 opinions likely.

First today is Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump

6-3 by Chief Justice Roberts

Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh dissent.

The court holds that IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose the tariffs.

170 pages and no way I'm going to read it all.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1287_4gcj.pdf

Well that was one little ruling now wasn't it?

My understanding is that there will be two immediate things to hash through.

What is the overall impact. Some tariffs rely on IEEPA and some do not from what I recall. And then I have not heard yet if they say they need to unwind / refund tariffs.

Turley / Bream going through the opinion and Turley already indicating Trump has other paths to enact tariffs.

Should be interesting to see how the full opinion reads.

And that is it for today.

Next opinion day will be Tuesday, 2-24.

Rapier108 said:

---

First today is Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump

6-3 by Chief Justice Roberts

Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh dissent.

The court holds that IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose the tariffs.

170 pages and no way I'm going to read it all.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1287_4gcj.pdf

---

6-3...that's pretty conclusive.

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

First today is Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump

6-3 by Chief Justice Roberts

Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh dissent.

The court holds that IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose the tariffs.

170 pages and no way I'm going to read it all.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1287_4gcj.pdf

---

6-3...that's pretty conclusive.

---

Not at all. 9-0 is conclusive. 8-1 with KJB dissenting is conclusive. Anything less is a split decision.

6-3 that says a ton!!

Quote:

---

Louisiana v. Callais-

---

For the life of me I can't understand why this one is dragging out so much. Only thing I can think of is liberal dissenters trying to delay to make sure it doesn't affect 2026 midterms. I mean, it was on the docket last year and they decided to re-hear it this year. They have all they need now to decide it.

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

Louisiana v. Callais-

---

For the life of me I can't understand why this one is dragging out so much. Only thing I can think of is liberal dissenters trying to delay to make sure it doesn't affect 2026 midterms. I mean, it was on the docket last year and they decided to re-hear it this year. They have all they need now to decide it.

---

Most likely.

Someone actually asked that question on Scotusblog today. Amy said that there are deadlines for concurrences and dissents once the opinion is finalized. That said, I'm sure some of them will try to delay until the last possible moment.

edit, didn't make sense.

Burpelson said:

---

6-3 that says a ton!!

---

Yep, a 2 to 1 majority is very conclusive.

That's the standard in Congress for overruling a president's veto.

What a total cluster F. The Supreme Court just F-ed us. So Stupid.

Teslag said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

First today is Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump

6-3 by Chief Justice Roberts

Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh dissent.

The court holds that IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose the tariffs.

170 pages and no way I'm going to read it all.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1287_4gcj.pdf

---

6-3...that's pretty conclusive.

---

Not at all. 9-0 is conclusive. 8-1 with KJB dissenting is conclusive. Anything less is a split decision.

---

6-3 on a conservative dominated court is pretty conclusive.

---

Laughable for anyone to claim Roberts is conservative.

If it feels "conclusive" to you, fine. I don't see it that way. At all.

Now there are billions that must be returned? What a s---it show

Glass half full on this tariff ruling.....it will force Congress and the WH to actually cut spending which is what they should have done in the first place instead of enacting tariffs.

Oh wait, that's just me living in fantasyland. Back to debt acceleration and the collapse of the US!

Court did not address it, which is going to be the next battleground between the WH and the US businesses that paid them.

Quote:

---

Justice Kavanaugh has an additional, subtler point (besides the complexity of the refund process): "A second issue is the decision's effect on the current trade deals. Because IEEPA tariffs have helped facilitate trade deals worth trillions of dollarsincluding with foreign nations from China to the United Kingdom to Japan, the Court's decision could generate uncertainty regarding various trade agreements. That process, too, could be difficult."

---

My reading of the opinion:

1) This limits executive power, but pretty much only in this circumstance. One of the interesting arguments by SCOTUS is that no POTUS has interpreted a 50 year old law to have the meaning that Trump says it has. This is an important argument. It's not surprising from an originalist heavy court. It will make it harder for future presidents to dust off very old laws and try and use them in new ways. It's also of note that the Court gave zero deference to the Government's definitions of what the terms in the law mean. The court decided that on the merits with no deference to the Government. Not exactly Chevron Deference, in that it wasn't an interpretation of a technical term, but in the same ballpark.

2) Biden pulled this stunt as well, pulling out old laws and interpreting them in new ways in an executive order. There has to be plenty of opportunity to do that going forward, but those opportunities just got their wings clipped a bit.

3) It is worth noting that SCOTUS didn't rule about returning the tariffs. There will likely be tons of lawsuits on this going forward, on what to do with the collected tariffs. It could end quickly, and the courts say that the money stays with the government, but I don't find that as likely. Trump will probably negotiate settlements with all of the impacted countries, and Trump is good at negotiating.

4) I think we see this issue back at SCOTUS when it comes to what to do next.

5) I find it interesting that Trump is purposefully pushing the envelope when it comes to the power that certain laws give to the executive. It is clear that he is going to push just as hard as he wants to, with no fear that the court might roll back executive power. For me, every time that Trump gets handed a defeat by SCOTUS where executive power is rolled back is a win for the US, as congress's delegation of their powers has gotten very unhealthy. If Congress doens't want to take a stand on something, and the POTUS doesn't have the power to do anything about that thing, then nothing will get done. Doing nothing is almost always the best course of action for the Federal Government.

Supreme Court rules that Trump's sweeping emergency tariffs are illegal
https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/20/politics/supreme-court-tariffs

Kansas Kid said:

---

This is one of the rare times I disagree with the 3 justices that dissented. The Constitution is clear on which branch of the government can impose tariffs especially broad ones against almost every country in the world. Just like Chevron was set aside by these justices saying Congress can't delegate its powers to the executive branch, they can't delegate away their power to levy taxes including tariffs either.

---

My problem here is C.J. Roberts loosey goosey definition of what a tax is. Compare to his opinion in the ObamaCare case. The Obama administrations position was that the mandates were not a tax, no way no how.

Roberts just poohpoohed that argument and said it was a tax and if the voters didn't like it, they needed to fix it through the ballot box. Apparently the dumb people of AZ didn't get that memo and sent McCain back to the Senate to put the kibosh on the repeal of ObamaCare. (Yet another reason to dislike McCain.)

The aftermath of this one is going to fun to sort through.

Quote:

---

Ok Roberts. If this is a tax argument and ruling then let's go back to Obamacare. Remember that's a tax? Let's go back and make sure Congress doesn't relinquish its taxing authority. Oh wait. Obama immediately told the IRS not to collect the tax.

Explain how a president can tell the IRS not to collect a legal tax that Congress has authorized. Come on Mr Roberts. Explain that.

---

Holy non-sequitur.

Quote:

---

My reading of the opinion:

---

Quick reader!

So what happens next? All tariffs go back to ZERO while others continues to tariff us???

infinity ag said:

---

So what happens next? All tariffs go back to ZERO while others continues to tariff us???

---

Tax me harder daddy!