Some of y'all will be very grateful for this ruling next time there's a Democrat POTUS…

I suspect the administration already has backup plans in place to justify these tariffs. There are several paths to get these tariffs in place using a legally valid approach. This seems like just another example of complete lack of respect an appreciation for law and order and spending the effort to get things done "the right way".

flown-the-coop said:

---

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.

---

LOL He can barely read the speech he was given Worth noting

Nah man, this is embarrassing for him. He's not as sharp as he used to be.

How about we give the free market a shot for a change?

2040huck said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

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.

---

LOL He can barely read the speech he was given Worth noting

---

What are you watching?

TAMU1990 said:

---

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.

---

In my opinion, this is better than just a roadmap related to future tariffs. Trump already knew that and has been using those tools.

To me, this is Kavanaugh laying the foundation that any illegal tariffs that get enacted through means other than the IEEPA show that the tariffs through the IEEPA didn't create any harm, as the action was not illegal, Trump just used the wrong process. So, no harm, no foul. At least, arguably.

Haha. Trump just overruled SCOTUS, declared the tariffs will remain and he is adding a 10% global tariff. He recited 2 laws, Section 1... etc and so forth.

aTmAg said:

---

How about we give the free market a shot for a change?

---

Sure, go protest at the UN for a global end of tariffs. Else, Trump implementing tariffs is participating in the global free market. Not sure why people cannot understand this.

aTmAg said:

---

How about we give the free market a shot for a change?

---

Reactive Tariffs is closer to free market than this

Quote:

---

The legal argument for them likely would have carried the day in many other circumstances.

---

Such as what?
What circumstances permit the use of emergency powers in this manner? A power that was already explicitly prescribed to Congress by the Constitution

tysker said:

---

Nah man, this is embarrassing for him. He's not as sharp as he used to be.

---

Did he wander off camera? He stated what he is doing to counteract SCOTUS today and is now answering questions.

And you think it's embarrassing? Some of you folks are just weird in how you see Trump.

AggieIce said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

How about we give the free market a shot for a change?

---

Reactive Tariffs is closer to free market than this

---

No tariffs, small government, lower taxes, and elimination of the welfare state is even closer.

the weird thing is that GOP will lose nation-wide in the fall because of the poor economy which is caused by the tariff policy.

I said before that SCOTUS could potentially save Trump from himself by striking down the tariffs. But it is clear that Trump will not go through congress and try and use other means to implement/keep/expand all the tariffs.

The only way to stop him is to remove him from office. Chances of that are zero right now.

Now it is believed that the GOP may lose the Senate. It's obviously clear that they will massively lose the House (that's why so many GOP are retiring).

aTmAg said:

---

How about we give the free market a shot for a change?

---

This has been addressed ad infinitum.

That's not the reality we live in.

China basically uses their productive economy as an arm of their military. I wouldn't hesistate for a minute to say that 90+% of the tariff discussion is targeting China directly or indirectly. There is no scenario where unfriendly nations are going to, on one hand, seek our demise, and on the other, promote and participate in fair trade.

Gavin Newsome is creating a CCP wetdream wherein he is hamstringing the entire west coast fuel supply. You think the CCP is not at the very least influencing the green movement? How convenient that refineries on the west coast are shutting down as a China picks up talk about Taiwan invasion. Where's the supply going to come from? India? Russia? We're not going to be trucking it over the Rockies.

There's no free market geo-politically.

flown-the-coop said:

---

tysker said:

---

Nah man, this is embarrassing for him. He's not as sharp as he used to be.

---

Did he wander off camera? He stated what he is doing to counteract SCOTUS today and is now answering questions.

And you think it's embarrassing? Some of you folks are just weird in how you see Trump.

---

He's losing, and he knows it. We all see it. He's running out of random non-sequiturs in response to direct questions.

tysker said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

tysker said:

---

Nah man, this is embarrassing for him. He's not as sharp as he used to be.

---

Did he wander off camera? He stated what he is doing to counteract SCOTUS today and is now answering questions.

And you think it's embarrassing? Some of you folks are just weird in how you see Trump.

---

He's losing, and he knows it. We all see it. He's running out of random non-sequiturs in response to direct questions.

---

Not sure you know what on-sequiturs are. Want to provide examples?

He's losing? He just said how he's moving right on from the SCOTUS "set back".

No matter how much you wish it were not so, Trump continues to win.

tysker said:

---

Quote:

---

The legal argument for them likely would have carried the day in many other circumstances.

---

Such as what?
What circumstances permit the use of emergency powers in this manner? A power that was already explicitly prescribed to Congress by the Constitution

---

The Court said IEEPA doesn't allow for the imposition of tariffs, so there are not any "other circumstances" that would allow for tariffs to be imposed under IEEPA.


"Held: IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs", page 2.

aTmAg said:

---

AggieIce said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

How about we give the free market a shot for a change?

---

Reactive Tariffs is closer to free market than this

---

No tariffs, small government, lower taxes, and elimination of the welfare state is even closer.

---

I'm talking about things that actually have a realistic chance of occurring…

flown-the-coop said:

---

tysker said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

tysker said:

---

Nah man, this is embarrassing for him. He's not as sharp as he used to be.

---

Did he wander off camera? He stated what he is doing to counteract SCOTUS today and is now answering questions.

And you think it's embarrassing? Some of you folks are just weird in how you see Trump.

---

He's losing, and he knows it. We all see it. He's running out of random non-sequiturs in response to direct questions.

---

Not sure you know what a non-sequiturs are. He's losing? He just said how he's moving right on from the SCOTUS "set back".

No matter how much you wish it were not so, Trump continues to win.

---

He "literally saved Intel." If winning is socialism, then ya his he's doing great!

DeschutesAg said:

---

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.

---

Question:

If the tariffs Trump imposed by the IEEPA were legal under the Trade Act, what was the harm done? How do you calculate it?

There is a decent change that there will be no eventual financial remedies, as it can easily be argued that no one was harmed, and the cost of going to bat with Trump on that while he wields the rest of the power of the IEEPA firmly in his grasp is likely too high for most to complain, especially when you might not win three years down the line when the case finally makes it back to SCOTUS.

You are not making the least bit of sense. How are tariffs socialism?

Sims said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

How about we give the free market a shot for a change?

---

This has been addressed ad infinitum.

That's not the reality we live in.

China basically uses their productive economy as an arm of their military. I wouldn't hesistate for a minute to say that 90+% of the tariff discussion is targeting China directly or indirectly. There is no scenario where unfriendly nations are going to, on one hand, seek our demise, and on the other, promote and participate in fair trade.

Gavin Newsome is creating a CCP wetdream wherein he is hamstringing the entire west coast fuel supply. You think the CCP is not at the very least influencing the green movement? How convenient that refineries on the west coast are shutting down as a China picks up talk about Taiwan invasion. Where's the supply going to come from? India? Russia? We're not going to be trucking it over the Rockies.

There's no free market geo-politically.

---

Nice try.

He implemented/raised tariffs for every country in the world. And he did it illegally.

ha ha trump is not backing down!

He will impose tariffs but call it something else.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

tysker said:

---

Quote:

---

The legal argument for them likely would have carried the day in many other circumstances.

---

Such as what?
What circumstances permit the use of emergency powers in this manner? A power that was already explicitly prescribed to Congress by the Constitution

---

The Court said IEEPA doesn't allow for the imposition of tariffs, so there are not any "other circumstances" that would allow for tariffs to be imposed under IEEPA.


"Held: IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs", page 2.

---

Which makes sense, Constitutionally speaking. There is not another "legal argument that would have carried the day."

The POTUS does not have the power to enact tariffs using emergency powers. Its like 'no **** sherlock'

BusterAg said:

---

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.

---

Nah. Something is not legal until a Court says it is illegal. The first person to break a law doesn't get a free bite at the apple.

flown-the-coop said:

---

You are not making the least bit of sense. How are tariffs socialism?

---

Government ownership of the means of production is socialism. Trump just said (again!) that he saved Intel, after the US government bought a controlling share of the company. My friend, you need to keep up

infinity ag said:

---

ha ha trump is not backing down!

He will impose tariffs but call it something else.

---

Just call them taxes.
Taxation without representation has worked so well for leadership like Trump

tysker said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

ha ha trump is not backing down!

He will impose tariffs but call it something else.

---

Just call them taxes.
Taxation without representation has worked so well for leadership like Trump

---

Only results matter.

Onward ho! More tariffs.

tysker said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

ha ha trump is not backing down!

He will impose tariffs but call it something else.

---

Just call them taxes.
Taxation without representation has worked so well for leadership like Trump

---

While ideally I'd prefer we not impose more tariffs, what right do the countries we're 'taxing' (who are also trying to get the most of out us) have to representation?

shiftyandquick said:

---

Sims said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

How about we give the free market a shot for a change?

---

This has been addressed ad infinitum.

That's not the reality we live in.

China basically uses their productive economy as an arm of their military. I wouldn't hesistate for a minute to say that 90+% of the tariff discussion is targeting China directly or indirectly. There is no scenario where unfriendly nations are going to, on one hand, seek our demise, and on the other, promote and participate in fair trade.

Gavin Newsome is creating a CCP wetdream wherein he is hamstringing the entire west coast fuel supply. You think the CCP is not at the very least influencing the green movement? How convenient that refineries on the west coast are shutting down as a China picks up talk about Taiwan invasion. Where's the supply going to come from? India? Russia? We're not going to be trucking it over the Rockies.

There's no free market geo-politically.

---

Nice try.

He implemented/raised tariffs for every country in the world. And he did it illegally.

---

Your lack of analysis is expected. I'll reply as if you had a point you were trying to make rather than a pithy dismissal of my effort. With respect to China being an indirect target...there are examples all over the place.

Deminimis loop hole - sure, it was globally targeted but Temu and Shein were explicitly built to exploit the deminimis loop hole for the purpose of evading import duties. De minimis shipments increased from 140million in 2014 to 1.36 billion in 2024. The vast majority of that increase was Chinese origin.

China Plus One crackdown - specifically targeted the strategy where Chinese manufacturers have been steadily expanding into Southeast Asia, helping Chinese firms avoid U.S. tariffs, exploit cheaper labor, and diversify their supply chains.

Vietnam had their tariffs lowered in negotiation for all goods - EXCEPT - goods determined to be transhipped from .... China.

Transhipments, generally, received a 40% tariff in addition to any country of origin related duties. This was specifically done to target Chinese circumvention.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Trump acted under an untested interpretation of the law. He didn't act in knowing and deliberate violation of it. Now that yhis interpretation has been rejected by scotus, going forward it will be considered to be unsupportable and unlawful.

The tariffs this applied to are invalidated and csnt be collected going forwards. I highly doubt they will be retroactively refunded.

---

Since the consumers end up paying for them, any refunds should go to the consumers, shouldn't they?


Trump has claimed that the tariffs have brought in trillions of dollars. If that is so, assuming 400,000,000 Americans, that would work out to $2,500 per every $1 trillion collected collected.

One figure I've seen is that he claims they have brought in $18 trillion. That would mean each of us should get a refund of $45,000. Right?

Gigem314 said:

---

tysker said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

ha ha trump is not backing down!

He will impose tariffs but call it something else.

---

Just call them taxes.
Taxation without representation has worked so well for leadership like Trump

---

While ideally I'd prefer we not impose more tariffs, what right do the countries we're 'taxing' (who are also trying to get the most of out us) have to representation?

---

We were never taxing other countries. That's just the lie that narcissists tell you to get your compliance. Or maybe he doesn't know how tariffs actually work. Even odds, honestly.

Trump's new 10% global tariff via Section 122 was already totally telegraphed and it a fairly toothless stopgap as it expires after 150 days and can only be extended by Congress.

It is a finger in the dike for now so he can get his team arguing on a more specific basis using other acts.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

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.

---

Nah. Something is not legal until a Court says it is illegal. The first person to break a law doesn't get a free bite at the apple.

---

That's not how the executive branch in this government has ever worked, particularly since FDR

Sims said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

How about we give the free market a shot for a change?

---

This has been addressed ad infinitum.

That's not the reality we live in.

China basically uses their productive economy as an arm of their military. I wouldn't hesistate for a minute to say that 90+% of the tariff discussion is targeting China directly or indirectly. There is no scenario where unfriendly nations are going to, on one hand, seek our demise, and on the other, promote and participate in fair trade.

Gavin Newsome is creating a CCP wetdream wherein he is hamstringing the entire west coast fuel supply. You think the CCP is not at the very least influencing the green movement? How convenient that refineries on the west coast are shutting down as a China picks up talk about Taiwan invasion. Where's the supply going to come from? India? Russia? We're not going to be trucking it over the Rockies.

There's no free market geo-politically.

---

We either adopt the free market, or face an economic catastrophe in the future. You can try to hand wave away that reality horse much you want, but it won't change anything.