Today, the Dept of Justice Solicitor General Dean John Sauer provided oral arguments to the Supreme Court in support of President Donald Trump’s tariff authority. The issue at the heart of the matter is the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which grants the president the power to levy tariffs.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Sonia Sotomayor, leaned heavily on the argument that tariffs are taxes against the American people, and all taxes must come from Congress. The ‘tariffs are taxes’ argument seems to be the linchpin for the leftists on the court and the Gorsuch ‘conservatives’.
Solicitor Sauer countered the IEEPA tariffs are “regulations” against foreign imported goods. “The power to impose tariffs is a core application of the power to regulate foreign commerce, which is what the phrase ‘regular importation of commerce’ in IEEPA naturally evokes,” Sauer said.
The full audio of the arguments is provided below. (I’m working on the transcript). WATCH (prompted):
.
It’s not as easy, Chief Justice Roberts said, to simply frame a tariff as a tax – a power reserved to Congress. “It implicates, very directly, the president’s foreign affairs power,” said Roberts, who is a key vote to watch in the case.
Trump’s tariffs, Roberts said, were “quite effective” in achieving the president’s particular objective. That position is closely aligned with the administration’s position that a president has broad power in the context of foreign affairs.
The court is expected to hand down a decision by the end of June – or potentially sooner.
From the way it sounded…looks like it may well be a 6-3, striking down the EO.
I think Trump said he has a plan B.
…and that means a total disaster for the country.
No – from what I’ve read (and Bessent’s comments), the plan is to punt to 3 Federal statutes as their fallback.
The senate voted to strike down the tariiffs. This give the court cover under the doctrine of congressional intent. How could such a vote be scheduled? How could it pass? Twice, once for Brazil, again for Canada. Who is in charge of the senate? The corruption knows no bounds.
The house won’t take it up and Trump would never sign it but still it’s so gross and disgusting.
No, it means more creative solutions for the same result. Canada doesn’t want to ‘stop fentanyl’ ? We just stop any shipments from crossing the Canadian border. When we do that, suddenly Canada will want to negotiate again. We hold all the cards. Even if they rule he can’t ‘tax the American citizens’ with Tariffs, he’s clearly, according to their own arguments, allowed to regulate trade, i.e. close the border, limit shipments, etc. Tons of power still, they’re just taking away his most nimble, and soft negotiating tactic, the very effective tariffs he’s been using. Ultimately he will get the same result. I mean he could even charge fees to other countries to deal with us. He could get supplementary income for harmed industries from other countries, he could get deals similar to the one with Japan, etc.
He has a full arsenal, they’re just taking out the arrow and forcing him to use the musket.
If the Supreme Court is suddenly so concerned about the illegality of taxes, then how about the take a look at Taxachusetts and all these states that have taxed their people into poverty.
They can’t be against some taxes and perfectly okay with others.
They’d be crazy to say that Tariffs are a tax because then we can bring up all sorts of other things and say “IS this a tax???”
How about the mountain of permits we all deal with, aren’t those taxes too?
Exactly. How about being taxed on property you own year after year after year..and of course that tax going up because the assessor says so. Unrealized gains
The Supreme Court would be very dumb to go down this road.
Reminds me of Robert’s Obamacare being/not being a “tax” decision.
n.
Reminds me of Roberts still playing to his globalist deep state puppet masters
You’re close.
Some observe:
The bulk of globalists and deep state are themselves puppets. Along with other key figures, including actors in the Trump administration – all the way to the Top.
Everything you see is puppet theater – directly or indirectly.
The puppeteers have “six ways from Sunday” to control anyone not in their cabal and they operate with unlimited power behind a “national security” veil, colluding with like counterparts in all major nations. And no one will ever penetrate the veil or blow the whistle.
Their power was greatly expanded by this apparent controlled demolition:
ae911truth.org
If we reach the point where Trump comes out and says exactly what you just said, then and only then, will people like the puppets feel the stern hot gaze of the full electorate.
You know who is great to give a speech like the Trump + RUBIO, TOGETHER.
Trump has, in Marco Rubio, one of the most effective publice speakers in American politics that I have heard.
Unlike the pompous, theatrical Obama, whose pose and language was nothing but affect, Rubio speaks fluently, directly, and passionately when needed. Most importantly, he is PERSUASIVE.
His experience both as a long-time senator and now as SOS, adds gravitas to his ability to communicate.
Use him, Mr. President.
TL, your post started out nonsensical and veered to misdirection.
The puppeteer big picture post may be over the target, triggering COINTEL?
Boom. That’s what I was thinking.
Exactly, just like whatever they don’t like is racist, if they can’t say it’s racist then it must be a tax.
We really should be talking about the loss of our language here because that has a whole lot to do with what we’re looking at here.
Yes, but if SCOTUS restricts their ruling to the specific objection before them in this consolidated case of “Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (Docket No. 24-1287)” of whether or not a U.S. President can impose sweeping tariffs on imports under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977 (50 U.S.C. §§ 1701 et seq.); then President Trump is free to continue imposing tariffs under the Trade Act of 1974 (Sections 122, 201, 301) in my opinion as long as it’s fair trade that he’s rectifying.
While the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate foreign commerce and impose tariffs; Congress has delegated some of this authority to the President through statute.
Look at the “Trade Act of 1974 (Sections 122, 201, 301)” as they permit the President to adjust tariffs in response to trade imbalances.
The President was smart to make that a platform of his administration’s agenda with “The Fair and Reciprocal Plan.” See here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/02/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-announces-fair-and-reciprocal-plan-on-trade/
I’m not a political attorney but it seems to me that even if he loses the ability to uni-laterally impose tariffs without explicit congressional approval under the IEEPA; he should still be able to implement tariffs to correct trade imbalances, uni-laterally outside of a national emergency, through the power entrusted to the President from Congress under the Trade Act of 1974.
Am I wrong?
From what I have read as this has been percolating through courts supports your thinking. And Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 also has been talked about as well. Bessent has always articulated that there were other tariff mechanisms that could be used.
No; if I understand it correctly, that is the fallback position.
CSPAN will be replaying the audio which was followed by commentary from the ED of SCOTUSblog. I found that really clarifying.
https://www.scotusblog.com/
Well, the President will be able to under the Trade Act of 1974 in my opinion assuming SCOTUS doesn’t make some grand sweeping decision that effectively strips the power from the President to correct unfair trade and lays it solely at the feet of a Congress that isn’t going to do anything except take handouts from corporatists to expand trade imbalances through more “free-trade” agreements that accelerates offshoring to foreign nations, outsourcing of U.S. work to foreign firms, and the in-sourcing of foreign replacement labor instead of correcting trade imbalances and protecting U.S. workers.
There is no legal basis for a SCOTUS justice to imagine that a tariff is a tax. If it’s imported and no one buys it, is there a tax?
When a justice makes an ANALOGY as a legal interpretation, we are in VERY dangerous territory.
Are you right? I kind of hope so, but here’s the rub:
If Trump decided to make such a maneuver, congress might well move to impeach and remove.
Tariffs per se have been deemed within the raising of revenue powers of Article I since the Eighteenth Century.
But those powers, which tend to regulate foreign trade, have been repeatedly delegated to the President because of their intersection with broader national defense and security interests that are within the defined powers of the Executive.
As a practical matter, Congress has routinely delegated these powers, because the Executive has far greater agility in effectively responding to the very dynamic and volatile nature of those relationships.
Agility is a good word here. How anyone could trust Congress to manage tariffs is beyond me. These feckless, corrupt morons are more concerned with virtue signaling than doing anything useful. If ever there were a justification for an executive power, tariffs would be one of them.
Yes, if it’s imported the company pays the tariff regardless of if the public buys it. If a company that buys it is Public, I could see them arguing that the loss in profit margin, even if not passed to consumer, is paid by the investors in the business. If a company is privately owned, the business owner pays the tariff.
To your point though, if that is their rationale, the VAST majority of the goods are not necessary. So if a person buys it, it is not out of need. Meaning they are making an informed decision if they pay the tax. THAT is how you defeat this bull$hit.
Unlike obamacare which they FORCED us to buy it, even if we don’t NEED it.
Basically what I’m saying is, these people have no clue and are making everything up on the fly. We are screwed.
It’s been reported that most importing companies now selling their goods/services in the USA market under President Trump’s trade agreements now in force Have Not raised their USA prices to pass the tariff cost increase on to USA buyers. They are eating the tariff cost cuz they desire to sell in the USA market more than losing margin due to the ‘entry fee’ tariff cost.
There is no legal basis for a SCOTUS justice to imagine that forced participation in a healthcare plan is a tax. If they’re not forced, and no one buys it, is there a tax?
If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
Nobody knows
re: impeachment,
Just say’in.
This is exactly what I said here Daniel.
We’re seeing the theft of our language and the weaponization of our language.
They cannot simply redefine what words are and mean.
You are not wrong.
This was not my concentration of practice. But my quick review is that the Executive has resort to several trade statute provisions under which to implement and modify duties/tariffs.
So as I recall, the supremes ruled that lower courts are overstepping their authority pausing some of President Trumps EOs and actions.
But the lower courts are still doing it and the Supremes, thus far, have made no comment.
Also the Federal Law is only U.S. citizens can vote in federal elections and a few states are outwardly not following the law. The Supremes have been silent on that as well.
They seem to just be opportunists to create problems for our Constitutional Republic.
I guess I’m just pissed watching our judicial system rule on things using legal mumbo jumbo to rule.
Obviously I’m not a lawyer and have become more and more disgusted with the judicial branch of our government.
yes, but it’s a popular stance to take here, so right or wrong may not matter much. Treepers, including myself, want tariffs to be applied so much that right or wrong is now a subjective term.
If you say the Constitution means what it says, unless amended, then yes you are wrong. There is no constitutional authority for the President to apply tariffs. That was a job WE gave to Congress and Congress alone. No “law” can amend the Constitution just because rogue judges say it can.
That’s where the nondelegation doctrine may come into play, which appears to have been favorably addressed in the context of past trade statutes considered by the courts.
Yes, these are Article I powers. But they are deemed delegable to the Executive because of their peculiar impact on national security interests falling under Article II.
And that is what Congress has repeatedly done, with the past blessing of the Judiciary.
I am relying on the strength of the Administration’s citations in drawing that conclusion.
But also, the Constitution was never intended to be defended and implemented by the Court. That is the job of We The People through our votes and if need be our 1st and 2nd amendment. We are just too cowardly to do so.
Jefferson famously said that if SCOTUS defined the Constitution then we would live under an Oligarchy of Nine.
The SCOTUS is meant to rule on the case before it and nothing else. There is no precedent set that reaches nation wide. They made that up out of whole cloth and took the power for themselves.
I said this above too.
The President is carrying out the agenda that he ran and won on..
We The People ARE running our country and the Supreme Court is now tasked with what amounts to stripping us of our win if they decide we cannot have these Tariffs- and this is not okay.
I agree with you on this and with strict constructionism, but not applied selectively to use against things that are good for America and ignored when it used to support things that harm America; the fact being that we wouldn’t even be in this mess if we had followed strict constructionism all along.
He’s also stressed that much of this is about national security.
He’s got a lot he’s trying to accomplish with this, but one big thing is to return America to being more self reliant.
We need to make much more of our own stuff here again.. and there are some very specific things he’s mentioned that are critical, rare earths and steel come to mind, some pharmaceuticals.
So this is a part of all the use of Tariffs too.
Scott Bessent has said there is a Plan B contingency should the ruling go against President Trump.
This link explains what this might look like, including asking Congressional Republicans to enact them.
Given that Republicans are not so clever at hiding their attempts to undermine him and his agenda with their fit of pique and sulk…and probably are in the process of attempting a replay of the 2018 midterm elections which deliberately gave power to the Dems…I do hope this Plan B does not include hoping to coopt their pinky swear “promise” to do so.
Their power mad egos would destroy this nation. The terrible undoing of his economic successes on behalf of the health of America and Americans be damned.
And the Republic or what’s left of it be damned as well.
https://m.economictimes.com/news/international/us/what-will-happen-if-the-us-supreme-court-blocks-trumps-tariffs-all-scenarios-explained/articleshow/123768948.cms
They would have to get all 5 women.
I use that term loosely 🤮🤮
Isn’t Jumanji Auto-Pen Brown going to be disqualified?
I saw what you did there.
I’m thinking 5-4 for Trump. I believe they’re asking “Devil’s advocate” questions so that it doesn’t appear that they are giving Trump everything he wants, they want to push back a little. I’m hoping that is the case.
… or a 5-4 Approval of the EO.
The Supreme Court must be shown that the old neocon claim that tariffs are 100% a tax on consumers. This is so ingrained it will be impossible to achieve. Show them all the numbers, predicted vs actual. Explain how tariffs are reacted to in a whole host of ways besides adding the cost to final price, including corporate absorption, absorption by countries via subsidy or other incentives, manipulation of currency, and simple buyer choice. New markets open when others close, including markets here in the USA, which is largely the point. But these old guys brought up as “free traders” eat, sleep and drink “tariffs are a tax”.
People who say tariffs are taxes don’t understand tariffs. When you say that you are showing your ignorance and that includes the SC.
Taxes have often been used, not so much for revenue generation, but as a way to shape economic policy. That’s why tariffs in the 1820s-1850s were such an issue. I don’t think anyone back then argued that tariffs were not taxes because they were designed to protect industries in certain states.
We’re screwed if President Trump loses this.
This country will be done economically and on the national security level.
Foreign countries will tariff us at 100%.
I have a really bad feeling about this SCOTUS decision.
We don’t care if other countries tariff us at 100%.
We should grown our own food and make our own products. Anything more than that is gravy. The farmers have been ripping the US off for decades.
I remember a year after the crops were sold and bills for fertilizer, seasonal help paid, etc; my FIL had 20.00 to show for his efforts. Year of no rain and crops burned in the fields. Just don’t paint all farmers with a broad brush, city slicker.
I can tell ya for sure, no one gets rich farming in the Granite State either.
This hate on farmers pisses me off, it’s damn hard work and most all of the little farms around the country barely make it, most are not. This is why so many are selling out and that is another problem.
#NoFarmsNoFood
I listened to the whole thing live and I got the impression the decision will go in favor of President Trump.
Ipray you are right Sunshine
Ditto-And if you are a lawyer, put your name in for the next Supreme Court opening.
I hope and pray you are correct. If it doesn’t then yes, the US is screwed. It will signal to the evil scum of the World to go in and finish them off because there will be NO DEFENCE.
It is not uncommon for an appellate panel to test the weaknesses of one side that they nevertheless intend to favor in their opinion. That could very well have occurred here.
I did not hear the livestream. But I presume both sides were dealt difficult questions testing the strengths and weaknesses of their arguments.
Many such judicial decisions involve a more complex balancing test, where both favorable and unfavorable factors are weighed, to determine the outcome most faithful to the prevailing laws at issue.
Let’s hope that is happening here, Justice Jackson’s mind notwithstanding.
It is not uncommon for an appellate panel to test the weaknesses of one side that they nevertheless intend to favor in their opinion. That could very well have occurred here.
True. Reading the tea leaves of an oral argument can be as accurate as…reading tea leaves. Sometimes the justice will come down hard on the position it intends to support to make certain that there aren’t any significant weaknesses to that position. If it holds up under scrutiny, then the justice will vote for that position..
What mind?
Then we were listening to completely different cases.
The 3 Libby women continued to challenge the Solicitor General. AC-B seemed concerned with the amount of “mess” would be involved with reversing the EO; Alito, Kavanaugh and Thomas seemed receptive. Roberts didn’t say much.
But don’t take my word for it – my suggestion is to amble over to SCOTUSblog and listen to the Executive Dir’s very thorough analysis given on CSPAN following oral arguments. He also thought it would end up either a 6-3 or 5-4, with the Court remanding the matter back to the lower court for further review, which he believed would lead to further litigation.
https://www.scotusblog.com/
scotusblog.com lost it’s credibility after it was bought out by Stephen Hayes’ Dispatch. Establishment, globalist, anti-MAGA, anti-America First.
I allege your source can’t be trusted.
Maybe – but the ED providing the commentary was excellent. And, theres also this:
Tariffs Update
There is a sizable divergence occurring in the betting markets, regarding the SCOTUS decision. According to Polymarket, there is only a 29% chance that IEEPA tariff authority will be upheld, and only 10% chance SCOTUS will require Treasury to refund revenue already collected. (Posted in Charles Payne’s newsletter this afternoon.)
It is really obscene and disgusting that one can legally gamble on something like this. I wonder how many SCOTUS justices or clerks have money down on the outcome?
I too literally pray you are correct lady Sunshine!! I am hopeful that Roberts and others supremes are testing the Gov. with testy questions but in the end go with common sense and justice and vote yes to save T rumps right to use tariffs. It will be a close vote as trillions are at sake as Sundance likes to say.
Let us pray for these supremes to do what is right for USA.
I’ll take 5-4 as a winfor us
Don’t if I caught all of the proceedings, but most of it. That was my impression as well.
The lawyers arguments against the president having the authority seemed to be getting them nowhere. They were on a way street of just talking in circles to avoid answering the questions directly with a yes or no.
If Trump loses, his balls would have been cut off internationally to negotiate anything. His presidency would be essentially dead. No country will allow any US product into their country without a huge tariff. That 15 Trillion in investment from foreign sources? That will dry up. Why would they? No investment in the US. No jobs repatriated.
And an embargo on all of these countries would happen.
you indeed are a “Ray of Sunshine.”
The tariff case is a difficult, politically sensitive, complicated issue. This is exactly what the Roberts Court hates and fears.
Roberts is a coward. ACB is afraid of political pushbacks . Kavanaugh and Gorsuch are squishy. Those four “swing votes” hate to make big political decisions they might be blamed for.
They are going to twist themselves into pretzels to find some way, any way they can dodge the whole issue without resolving it.
My guess is they might nibble away at the President’s ability to impose new tariffs but not actually reverse anything he has already done. Then the court will kick the issue back down to lower courts for more cases to develop. That should buy a few years of time and by then President Trump will be out of office.
The Court will desperately look to find some way to punt.
I would put that the favoring the President category.
President Trump’s Trump card: Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930
Justice Alito made a very powerful point and it was the President can us Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, which allows the president to impose tariffs up to 50% on nations that discriminate against U.S. commerce.
Sundance you say we should not use Ai but in this case i’m going to link a grok explanation of what exactly section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 does/says.
Please forgive this non-attorney for using this this time here: https://x.com/i/grok/share/r3KwaByNbbhZiUyFs6GFqs1QR
GOOD JOB as you quote Laws that SCOTUS is ignoring. These Morons FAIL to understand the actual LAWS!
Did these SCOTUS Morons get their law degrees by buying the tests?
My guess is at least 2 of the 4 females were pushed through via DEI.
they ALL were.
Prompted to Justice Alito on Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930
https://www.youtube.com/live/LXhzp0omPe0?si=GK5fJqVD2d0olS3p&t=12917
Dems know Section 338 is President Trump’s “trump card.”
A few months ago they tried to introduce a bill to repeal that specific provision. It won’t go anywhere. But it shows just how scared they are of 338.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/2464/text
100% correct
Money over common good is going to rule this day….
Constitution be damned….
Watch and see….
Your Honor, do you know what a tariff is?
Ketanji Brown Jackson: How would I know, I’m not a mathmagician any more than I’m a biologist !
DEI hire KJB managed to mix up Lincoln and Nixon in her questioning.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/11/justice-ketanji-brown-jackson-left-humiliated-after-making/
She also could not recall the Dred Scott Decision.
But she is a Domestic Tarririst!
I hope that Sauer at least pressed the Economic and National Security elements that have been express in purpose and intent in every trade agreement statute passed in the last century delegating that power to the President, whether under an emergency provision or a reciprocal tariff one.
These are not mere “tax assessments” strictly and entirely subject to the raising of revenue powers assigned under Article I.
The Executive has always been given a wider berth of discretion in matters where the elements of national defense and economic security are involved in or implicated by such trade circumstances.
The US trade and industrial sector imbalance has become structural in the extreme, and now threatens the economic and defense security of the Nation.
The President has been delegated the power and the relatively broad discretion to impose tariffs and other restraints under these statutes by Congress. And past Presidents have done precisely that, repeatedly.
The non-delegation doctrine is also more greatly exempted in those situations because of that DUAL interest between the Legislature and the Executive where trade involves the protection of national security.
Roberts is yet again playing with “taxation” logic gymnastics to gravely wound the Republic. But Gorsuch and the other juniors had better not make that fatally simplistic mistake.
No. These trade matters involve national security interests and the Nation’s economic defense against hostile foreign forces. Those situations more appropriately fall within the more agile to exercise powers of the President, and not the protracted process of Congress.
And Congress has repeatedly acknowledged that reality with the panoply of trade statutes they have passed over the decades.
Get out of the way SCOTUS.
Of course in the 1830s it was argued the tariff was unconstitutional, and further that states had the authority to determine that laws were unconstitutional and hence null and void.
Can the deep state hide behind ‘national security’ to conceal their crimes while simultaneously preventing the President from defending national security to protect the nation ?
Decision in June? wtf, tic toc
Conflating Tariffs as Taxes ignores the FACT that Taxes have their OWN Laws. It seems Roberts and the Leftists on the court along with Gorsuch are making incorrect arguments to justify their LACK of understanding of the Laws!
OK, so please explain that when “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises” how it is that a tariff is not a duty?
Duties are based on specific product characteristics and are generally permanent and set by international trade agreements. Tariffs, on the other hand, cover a broader category of restrictions on imports and exports, and may change relatively quickly and unilaterally. Tariffs are used as a policy tool in trade negotiations or disputes and may include other restrictions or conditions, such as quotas or embargoes.
If the SCOTUS doesn’t understand that, then they have no business ruling on this case.
The word “tariff” was first used by the British in the late 1500’s, so the word was known to those who wrote the US Constitution. Notice that they chose not to use that word in the Constitution.
Didn’t Chief Justice Roberts cast the deciding Obama Care vote by declaring it wasn’t a tax?
I think the opposite. He deemed it a tax when the government was making arguments that it wasn’t a tax. He helped them out big time.
No he said it survives as a tax completely apparently ignoring the fact that it didn’t originate in the House which is required for taxes. The Contitution totally whiffed by the Chief Justice.
It was not a tax for the purpose of the federal Anti-Injunction Act, which requires that anyone challenging a tax must first pay it and then sue for a refund. (Not done in the case).
But for the congressional authority to require the purchase of Obamacare, Roberts said that it was a tax so he could find congressional authority under the taxing power, not the commerce clause.
Meaning the fines for not having a policy were deemed a tax.
It’s a tax!
It’s a takings!
It’s a marriage!
It’s a gender!
It’s an election!
No, but it was a baby!
We need another Saturday Night Massacre for the Supreme Court.
I posted this elsewhere, but I think it is a position that needs reiterating:
President Trump argues that the globalist deindustrialization of America, which began over three decades ago, has created a National Emergency by eviscerating our supplies of essential metals, our ability to build large quantities of ships and other military equipment, our pharmaceutical industry, not to mention obliterating employment opportunity for Americans in our former industrial heartland. In his view, Economic Security Is National Security, and in this he is absolutely correct.
Ideally, it should be up to the Congress to provide the President with the authority to remedy this situation, but the Congress is paralyzed by party factionalism and the likelihood that a majority are in the pockets of the globalists who are banking on the continued decline of the country.
For that reason, Mr Trump and his advisors have invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, on the grounds that we are facing a long-standing but unacknowleged Emergency that will take years to address, and will require the elected President and his Cabinet to have free rein to manage the external economic affairs of the nation, just as they would in a declared War.
The aim is to re-industrialize the United States, in order to preserve this more perfect union for generations to come. The duty of the Court, I submit, is to recognize the Emergency and to authorize the validity and necessity of the President’s tariff policies.
Complete agreement!
All of this reasoning appears to have been encapsulated to varying degrees in the existing several trade statutes already enacted over the decades.
Past Congresses, back when the Legislature was less dysfunctional, appear to recognize exactly what you wrote.
Foreign trade, at its extremes, impacts national security. Effective tariffs become more than just “taxes” in that context.
There is a Plan B and Plan C
The Tariff Equity Act has passed the House but was held up in the Senate where they are considering passing it with reconciliation. This Act would essentially have the same tariffs. If that does not work Trump and company have already formulated a Plan C, however it would not be as strong as the current program .
If SCOTUS overrules the President’s executive power to invoke Tariffs, it’s game over for the Republic….In-fact, why even have a President or a Congress??? The Courts/Judiciary have usurped the President’s Constitutional power and deemed themselves ‘Kings’ ……
No. The emergency provisions that the Administration is relying on are only one tool of many statutory trade tools in the Executive’s tool kit to enter into and modify trade agreements. Failure under the IEEPA is not the end of the discussion.
I don’t know the full reasoning why the Administration started with the IEEPA for imposing larger, principally reciprocal, tariffs. But here we are.
Yes the beuracracy certainly wants President Trump to fail and that includes many Republicans.
Since not even one Republican has voted to recess to allow our President to appoint his own cabinet, I have concluded that *all* Republicans want President Trump to fail.
You can kiss the economy goodbye of these 7 jackasses rule against the nation and stab it in the back. Even our great president won’t be able to fix that. And where the hell is this useless congress who should have Trump’s and our backs? No where. They passed no firewall to keep communists and Muslims away from public office, no laws that assist the president with the repatriation of manufacturing or the prohibition of selling land to foreigners. Zero initiatives to fight the spread of drugs. But wait … they are all upset Trump is shifting military assets from Europe to other much needed areas. I don’t see how this ends well. Even with a great president in the White House. Think we may well be dancing over our graves in the new ballroom.
it will be very telling watching a bunch of foreign nations gloat over the “supreme court” serving THEM some justice.
Didn’t roberts rule the obamacare mandate wasn’t a tax? He’s all over the place and corrupt
No, he ruled it WAS a tax…
By the way, Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, lists “Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,” as within the purview of Congress. Interestingly, it does not list ‘Tariffs’. Tariffs are not the same as Duties, and certainly not Taxes, either. Arguably they should be considered a separate animal, a tool of Foreign Policy, and thus of the Executive.
That is somewhat falling into the semantical word trap that one lower court set to hold against the Administration. Both duties and tariffs have been construed as taxes, direct and indirect, for different purposes.
The more palatable argument is that that tariffs do fall within the Article I raising of revenue powers, but that there has been ample delegation of that power to the Executive over the decades via many trade statutes, because all such trade relations do intersect with matters assigned to the Executive, such as economic and national security.
Treaties are tools of foreign policy, too, and require the consent of the Senate.
So keeping within the lane of national security is more faithful to those trade statutes delegating modification powers to the President. And it also justifies the broad exemption from the non-delegation doctrine that they enjoy under judicial review.
Duties are based on specific product characteristics and are generally permanent and set by international trade agreements. Tariffs, on the other hand, cover a broader category of restrictions on imports and exports, and may change relatively quickly and unilaterally. Tariffs are used as a policy tool in trade negotiations or disputes and may include other restrictions or conditions, such as quotas or embargoes.
It would be interesting to see what the Founders thought when writing Section 8. Has anyone here done the research?
The fix is in. Bye bye, tariffs.
this was one that if the oligarchs and deep state had favors to call in, they called em.
Every industry will be in jeopardy if the SC stops PT. China and all nations will dump their products here and we won’t be able to do squat.
All those billions of investment promised would now go out the window as the companies don’t need to build here.
So instead of a hundreds of billions in interest free tariff money that could be used for all kinds of bills these absolute idiots will now force the US to borrow EVERY penny we use to pay bills
This will be a major blow to industry and jobs and frankly to the destruction of our country.
But the smug Judges will be happy until they too are replaced by AI.
So if tariffs are a tax, then are anti dumping and countervailing duties also taxes?
And if CBP required all consumption entries to be filed DDP (delivery duty paid), with the foreign exporter paying the tariff, then how would this be a tax on Americans?
It’s a tax on foreign corporations and their agents, not on Americans.
The Blob is invested deeply in America Last and in the Control Mechanism for Wealth Transfer to the Oligarchy called “the Internal Revenue Code”.
If the tariff CAN BE absorbed by the source entity with no corresponding rise in price to the importing entity, then it cannot be considered a tax on the American people.
If it can be shown that there is even a single instance of this, then it is substantiated that the tariff CAN be absorbed by the source.
It is binary, either a tariff IS or it ISN’T…not it sometimes is and sometimes isn’t…
Tariffs are a routine “cost of goods sold” in all international commerce. Every nation imposes them. Every shipper expects to pay them.
When you saw Trump’s table of tariffs, those numbers represented 50% of what the USA was then =paying= those countries! In other words, we were going to start charging them half what they charged us!
The President’s fundamental role in international relations must include tariffs.
Tariffs Update
There is a sizable divergence occurring in the betting markets, regarding the SCOTUS decision. According to Polymarket, there is only a 29% chance that IEEPA tariff authority will be upheld, and only 10% chance SCOTUS will require Treasury to refund revenue already collected. (From Charles Payne’s newsletter)
Listening to the proceedings, Roberts, Barrett, Gorsuch and the three libs are highly and broadly skeptical of the arguments made by Solicitor General Sauer. Alito and Kavanaugh were more finely focused upon single points that were contrary to the President’s tariff authority in this case.
Sauer is extraordinarily brilliant in his extemporaneous commentary and argumentation, but he is trying to open closed minds comprising the majority of the court. And, Jackson is a moron.
Interestingly, Investing.com reports that odds that the US Supreme Court will rule in favor of President Donald Trump’s global tariffs have fallen to 27%, according to Polymarket, dropping 12% on Wednesday as the initial court hearing began.
https://www.investing.com/news/stock-market-news/odds-fall-for-us-supreme-court-ruling-on-trump-tariff-legality-4334585?utm_medium=feed&utm_source=yahoo&utm_campaign=yahoo-www
If you had a group of patriots in the court, the decision would be easy. But because you have a court mostly held by spineless CLOWNS, they will punt part of it and walk a fine line.
I have had it with lawyer worship. Yes, I said it. I look forward to the day when their smug butts are replaced by AI.
I was listening a little- the opposition is arguing that the president isn’t allowed to “raise revenue”…..
He’s a Yankee, Tiff, but not a revenooer!
Hahahahhaaa
Justice Robert must have forgotten what a tax looks like.
OBAMA CARE WAS A TAX ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE… Its a sad day when I am SMARTER thank TWO JUSTICES!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Roberts loves to pull out that tax designation doesn’t he?
yep. election fraud has devastating consequences.
Am I correct in thinking that Chief Justice John Roberts is taking an opposite tack from what he did with Obamacare? Why should fairness not also be the objective in taxes?
john roberts is the ultimate hypocrite, from the man who cast the vote to make barry soetoro’s socialist ACA an illegal tax on all citizens. And now he’s concerned about tariffs as a tax on citizens? He and barry killed the middle class with their socialist ACA. Roberts answers to dark masters and deep state, they want to crash the economy by striking down The President’s tariffs.
There has not been true citizen representation in this republic for decades, perhaps not since 1913…
If tariffs are declared to be a tax on the American people, can Canada, et al, sue and claim reimbursements? You’ve got 3, or 4 or 5 justices who would side with all of the other countries just to lay it on Trump.
“ The court is expected to hand down a decision by the end of June – or potentially sooner”
What month is it?
tic toc run out the clock
I don’t think it can ever be looked at as a tax say that we were receiving goods sold at $100 with zero tariff and then we put a 10% tariff on. the company selling it decides to lower their price to $90 to equalize the tariff cost and the price to the consumer stays the same. How can it be considered a tax when a business absorbs a regulatory fee and not the consumer.
I’m old enough to remember when Health insurance became a tax.
We always read that the US was funded by tariffs its first 120 + years.
Who instituted them, Congress or the respective presidents?
Robert’s made Obama care a tax. Busch scum appointed
Over half who sit on the “Supreme Court” do not believe in the Constitution and have no problem with other countries slapping tariffs on this country and the DEI Strings are visible.
For someone who states only congress can create taxes at the federal level, Justice Roberts sure seems to create his fair share.
The argument is being made that tariffs are taxes on the American consumer. That the executive branch doesn’t have the power to tax via tariff. The executive branch taxes American citizens every single day through regulations across multiple departments of the executive branch. That is the precedent. That should be in the ears and mouths of the lawyers in front of the court tomorrow.
Who is gonna blink? My money is on that glorious asshole.
We have to get rid of Roberts.
He in prone to calling everything a tax when there is a problem in front of him, the decision to which will displease his establishment masters.
The reason that tariffs have not been punishing to Americans, just as Bessent and Trump said they would not be, is that the countries upon which they were placed decided that they’d lower the prices ON THEIR GOODS SO THAT THEY WOULD HAVE ACCESS TO THE HUGE AMERICAN MARKET.
The fact that the pussies from Kentucky are peeing their pants because they can’t sell to whiskey to Canada is just too bad.
Just another attempt by the Judiciary and Congress to usurp the power of the
Presidency.
I’m surprised more people haven’t came to the realization, that even if they strike down his ability to tariff, they are doing it solely by saying that it’s a tax on the consumer. You know what’s not a tax on the consumer? President Trump saying we’re no longer accepting appliances from China. Which is completely within his power to do, they were even very clear about this in the arguments today. He has the ability to ‘regulate’ trade, they’re arguing he doesn’t have the ability to add a tariff because it’s a tax on Americans. Even if that ends up true, he still hast he ability to ‘regulate’ trade, i.e., close the border. If he threatens to close the border with China, we won’t get the revenue we’re getting from tariffs, but we will still get the onshoring objective and anything in between. That would be the extreme example.
Like usual this is a bunch of hair on fire punditry. President Trump remains very capable of handling whatever result comes down.
Roberts is taking his definition straight from the International Trade Association:
https://www.trade.gov/import-tariffs-fees-overview-and-resources#:~:text=A%20tariff%20or%20duty%20(the,different%20products%20by%20different%20countries.
Didn’t look good today. Plan B.