An interesting thing here is that SCOTUS did not strike down Trumps use of, say, import quotas via the IEEPA. Only tariffs.

This is all big adieu about nothing.

Kavanaugh points out that even if today's mess of a ruling creates all sorts of chaos for previously imposed tariffs, Trump has many other options for imposing tariffs going forward. pic.twitter.com/Rdw2ab4o1G

— Mollie (@MZHemingway) February 20, 2026

WestAustinAg said:

---

This is all big adieu about nothing.

Kavanaugh points out that even if today's mess of a ruling creates all sorts of chaos for previously imposed tariffs, Trump has many other options for imposing tariffs going forward. pic.twitter.com/Rdw2ab4o1G

— Mollie (@MZHemingway) February 20, 2026

---

yep but the TDS infected borg thinks its some kind of blow to Trump.

Just think how egregiously illegal it was for some of the conservative justices to rule against his signature economic program.

But I do note that Kavanaugh favors being a Banana Republic and a supreme executive who is uncontstrained by pesky laws.

BoDog said:

---

Once again A.C. Barrett disappoints. I bet Trump would like to have a do over on that nomination.

---

Yeah, she has sucked.

They are not illegal. They were working.

SCOTUS is an embarrassment.

Trump will have a plan B.

Ok… so I did some digging, and yes, it seems like Trump did have a PLAN B if @SCOTUSblog ruled against him. Of course! He's always 20 steps ahead.

The contingency plans include EXPANDED use of Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, which allows tariffs on national security… pic.twitter.com/y9qumBakxS

— ᔕᗩᒪTY_ᔕᗩᑎᗪ ᔕ🇺🇸 💯Trump 🇺🇸‼️ (@SaysLion) February 20, 2026

mm98 said:

---

Sims said:

---

mm98 said:

---

Trying to digest all I can in the past hour. I'm in supply chain so this impacts me quite a bit.

Looks like IEEPA, Reciprocal, are affected.

232/301 are still in play?

---

Yes

If you're digesting for the purpose of getting money back, that's probably not happening unless you're the importer of record. If you're downstream, the IOR is probably going to hold off under the impression that the tariffs will just be reestablished under another mechanism. If your vendor just blended the tariffs into their prices, you're probably less likely to have an argument than if they delineated the tariffs amounts to a separate billable surcharge line.

---

Refunds at this point are not my immediate concern. Its the valued resell price of my inventory, which in my market, is commodity driven so the market reacts quick. Trying to figure out how many tens of thousands of SKUs I need to update.

We are not the IOR in most cases, so we'd be waiting on vendors to provide data, which will be delayed because they're waiting on the USCBP for refunds.

---

We're holding status quo for now, expecting that he'll find a different route for the tariffs. We've held off on filing for drawbacks to avoid complications if refunds are talked about.

AJ02 said:

---

mm98 said:

---

Sims said:

---

mm98 said:

---

Trying to digest all I can in the past hour. I'm in supply chain so this impacts me quite a bit.

Looks like IEEPA, Reciprocal, are affected.

232/301 are still in play?

---

Yes

If you're digesting for the purpose of getting money back, that's probably not happening unless you're the importer of record. If you're downstream, the IOR is probably going to hold off under the impression that the tariffs will just be reestablished under another mechanism. If your vendor just blended the tariffs into their prices, you're probably less likely to have an argument than if they delineated the tariffs amounts to a separate billable surcharge line.

---

Refunds at this point are not my immediate concern. Its the valued resell price of my inventory, which in my market, is commodity driven so the market reacts quick. Trying to figure out how many tens of thousands of SKUs I need to update.

We are not the IOR in most cases, so we'd be waiting on vendors to provide data, which will be delayed because they're waiting on the USCBP for refunds.

---

We're holding status quo for now, expecting that he'll find a different route for the tariffs. We've held off on filing for drawbacks to avoid complications if refunds are talked about.

---

My guess is he will try to reroute the unconstitutional tariffs through 232/301 and force another decision.

But the tariff dividend checks!

mm98 said:

---

AJ02 said:

---

mm98 said:

---

Sims said:

---

mm98 said:

---

Trying to digest all I can in the past hour. I'm in supply chain so this impacts me quite a bit.

Looks like IEEPA, Reciprocal, are affected.

232/301 are still in play?

---

Yes

If you're digesting for the purpose of getting money back, that's probably not happening unless you're the importer of record. If you're downstream, the IOR is probably going to hold off under the impression that the tariffs will just be reestablished under another mechanism. If your vendor just blended the tariffs into their prices, you're probably less likely to have an argument than if they delineated the tariffs amounts to a separate billable surcharge line.

---

Refunds at this point are not my immediate concern. Its the valued resell price of my inventory, which in my market, is commodity driven so the market reacts quick. Trying to figure out how many tens of thousands of SKUs I need to update.

We are not the IOR in most cases, so we'd be waiting on vendors to provide data, which will be delayed because they're waiting on the USCBP for refunds.

---

We're holding status quo for now, expecting that he'll find a different route for the tariffs. We've held off on filing for drawbacks to avoid complications if refunds are talked about.

---

My guess is he will try to reroute the unconstitutional tariffs through 232/301 and force another decision.

---

There is not another decision to make.

75% of Trump's tariffs rely on something other than the IEEPA, and none of those have been implicated or challenged. Trump will re-route through another authority, and nothing else will come of this. The only question is whether or not there will be refunds, and who will get them.

shiftyandquick said:

---

Trump obviously acted illegally. He cited fentanyl at first, which was a bold-faced obvious lie.

He needs to follow the law when trying to ruin the economy through tariffs. He needs to go through Congress and get Congress to agree to ruin the economy.

---

Weak gloat...."ruin the economy through tariffs". Who espouses this nonsense except liberally biased media sources that have ZERO clue?

While admitted I too thought they might be inflationary, they have proven not to be.

THIS is why a business man as President at this time is a GREAT thing.

annie88 said:

---

They are not illegal. They were working.

SCOTUS is an embarrassment.

Trump will have a plan B.

Ok… so I did some digging, and yes, it seems like Trump did have a PLAN B if @SCOTUSblog ruled against him. Of course! He's always 20 steps ahead.

The contingency plans include EXPANDED use of Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, which allows tariffs on national security… pic.twitter.com/y9qumBakxS

— ᔕᗩᒪTY_ᔕᗩᑎᗪ ᔕ🇺🇸 💯Trump 🇺🇸‼️ (@SaysLion) February 20, 2026

---

You really don't understand what legal and illegal means, do you?

And please provide details on how they were working without talking about the stock market.


I'll wait for a coherent response rather than an opinion or attack

91_Aggie said:

---

annie88 said:

---

They are not illegal. They were working.

SCOTUS is an embarrassment.

Trump will have a plan B.

Ok… so I did some digging, and yes, it seems like Trump did have a PLAN B if @SCOTUSblog ruled against him. Of course! He's always 20 steps ahead.

The contingency plans include EXPANDED use of Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, which allows tariffs on national security… pic.twitter.com/y9qumBakxS

— ᔕᗩᒪTY_ᔕᗩᑎᗪ ᔕ🇺🇸 💯Trump 🇺🇸‼️ (@SaysLion) February 20, 2026

---

You really don't understand what legal and illegal means, do you?

And please provide details on how they were working without talking about the stock market.


I'll wait for a coherent response rather than an opinion or attack

---

It's not that the tariffs under the IEEPA are illegal, and SCOTUS told us so.

It's that SCOTUS told us that the tariff's under the IEEPA are illegal, so, they are.

Some people have a hard time understanding that [not directed at you, obviously].

And, the tariffs are arguably working. More domestic investment in infrastructure, lots of tax revenue, no measurable impact on inflation.

It would be more difficult to prove that the tariffs were hurting than it would be to prove that tariffs are helping.

For those trade deals already signed, I assume this means nothing?

My read of it is the off-the-cuff tariff threats and modifications by tweet are basically off the table, but the major enforcement items will remain.

shiftyandquick said:

---

Just think how egregiously illegal it was for some of the conservative justices to rule against his signature economic program.

But I do note that Kavanaugh favors being a Banana Republic and a supreme executive who is uncontstrained by pesky laws.

---

Because he cited actual laws trump can use legally impose tariffs? Do you actually read what you write?

Im Gipper said:

---

Not only is there already a thread, YOU POSTED in it!!

Our American hero CEOs would've never failed like this!

---

Yes, but that was a thread for Friday SCOTUS stuff.

This particular issue is a big deal. It is what Trump's administration is based upon so needs more discussion.

infinity ag said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Not only is there already a thread, YOU POSTED in it!!

Our American hero CEOs would've never failed like this!

---

Yes, but that was a thread for Friday SCOTUS stuff.

This particular issue is a big deal. It is what Trump's administration is based upon so needs more discussion.

---

You do realize, don't you, that the court only issued one opinion today?

Kashchei said:

---

Worst dictator ever!

---

Worst dictator ever? Who are you talking about? Hitler? Stalin? They killed millions and millions and millions of people. Right?

shiftyandquick said:

---

Trump obviously acted illegally. He cited fentanyl at first, which was a bold-faced obvious lie.

He needs to follow the law when trying to ruin the economy through tariffs. He needs to go through Congress and get Congress to agree to ruin the economy.

---

Where were you when Biden was trying to give freeriders with art degrees money ?

You mean the unlawful program that was also shut down by the Supreme Court?

BoDog said:

---

Once again A.C. Barrett disappoints. I bet Trump would like to have a do over on that nomination.

---

He ignored her gender.

BoDog said:

---

Once again A.C. Barrett disappoints. I bet Trump would like to have a do over on that nomination.

---

What is it about her ruling that is bothersome or not in keeping with the Constitution?

Kavanaugh’s dissent is the roadmap for future tariffs listing statutes from the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, the Trade Act of 1974, and the Tariff Act of 1930.

“In essence, the Court today concluded that the President checked the wrong statutory box by relying on IEEPA, rather… https://t.co/xbJL5I1AYP

— Andrew Kolvet (@AndrewKolvet) February 20, 2026

Sounds like this saga isn't over.

WestAustinAg said:

---

This is all big adieu about nothing.

---

It is a big thing to the people and businesses who were directly impacted. It is arguably an insanely irresponsible and stupid blunder by Trump and his advisors. They intentionally chose to unlawfully impose hundreds of billions of dollars in tariffs when there were multiple normal legal established pathways to do tariffs available to them.

I wonder what the eventual financial remedies will be, if any, to compensate those who were harmed. Sounds like many will just have to accept the losses.

Loyalty said:

---

Kashchei said:

---

Worst dictator ever!

---

Worst dictator ever? Who are you talking about? Hitler? Stalin? They killed millions and millions and millions of people. Right?

---

Those were very effective dictators. Trump is not. He's literally the worst at being dictatorial.

agsalaska said:

---

Should have been 9-0. They were obviously illegal from the very beginning.

---

No they weren't and still aren't. "Obviously" says the non-lawyer.

HoustonAggie11 said:

---

Trump acted illegally?

---

If the Democrats gain power during the midterms this will be used in articles of impeachment.
if you are considering voting for any Democratic candidate at any level of government you should immediately reconsider your voting preferences.

shiftyandquick said:

---

Just think how egregiously illegal it was for some of the conservative justices to rule against his signature economic program.

But I do note that Kavanaugh favors being a Banana Republic and a supreme executive who is uncontstrained by pesky laws.

---

You really don't understand how our government works.

At all.

jt2hunt said:

---

Lol congress doing something!

---

FIFY

Lame duck is on the way out.

Trump is great. Says he can do anything he wants regarding trade except charging a $1 for anything. He can do licenses, fees, fines, block trade, etc. But he just cannot levy anything financial related.

Says he could absolutely destroy all foreign trade if he wanted. But he will play nice and use the other avenues available to him, and all current tariffs remain in place.

Good Trump. Fight fight fight.

2040huck said:

---

Lame duck is on the way out.

---

Lame duck is on camera right now taking a hellacious duck **** on congress and the Supreme Court. You should watch, it's great!

And keep screaming "lame duck". Gives Rs even more justification to go ahead and end the filibuster. You probably didn't think that part through though. It's worth noting.

agsalaska said:

---

Should have been 9-0. They were obviously illegal from the very beginning.

---

No, they were not.

They were not illegal until SCOTUS said they were. The legal argument for them likely would have carried the day in many other circumstances. But, for this court, for this issue, in 2026, Trump wasn't going to win.