The high court has indicated it will be releasing opinions on one or more of the previously argued cases on Friday February 20, Tuesday Feb 24, or Wednesday Feb 25. The decision over tariffs triggered by President Trump using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) is one of the decisions now considered highly likely to surface.
If the decision doesn’t come this Friday, a rather interesting situation unfolds. The following week falls into the Tuesday Feb 24 State of the Union address.
Typically, several Supreme Court justices sit in front row of the House floor during the speech. The decision could be released on the morning of the speech, or justices could actually sit in the audience – knowing the outcome and the morning after the State of the Union address, the ruling could be released.
Now, there is a possibility the ruling will not come out in this cycle, but that is diminishing possibility considering the length of time the Supreme Court has sat on this opinion.
The court knows the importance of this decision, and they obviously know the State of the Union speech is scheduled to be delivered on Tuesday the 24th. This will be an interesting dynamic to watch unfold.
Trump is coming to Rome Ga in my home state!
Tell MTG to stay away! 😉
Perhaps he should visit Athens, GA. What a message that would send.
P.S. Berry College, 1980: 1970 Le Mans jacked up with chrome wheels and white letter tires. Girlfriend there and got to visit the waterwheel and the eagles nest. Ah, to be young again! Those were the good ol’ days!…
Insert stressed emoji here. Hopefully, if they rule against it, Alito writes in the dissent a path forward for Trump to use to make it work still.
SCOTUS will issue some mangled half assed ruling that no one will be happy with.
It won’t stop Tariffs but will make it much harder to implement them.
You’ve clearly navigated the political landscape before.
If Trump gets struck down, we’ll never hear the end of it from the Dems and the left.
The tariff laws are the law. It isn’t the SCOTUS purview to change them or even comment. How the hell did we ever get here? This is congress’s responsibility. Should have never been allowed.
The same was true of Obamacare and yet they intervened by declaring it a tax—even when Obama claimed it wasn’t. Their job is interpretation not legislation
Your position is correct in every way. To answer your question of how the hell we got here, the answer is that we abandoned, in order: God, common sense, and subsequently lost our collective minds. The proof is evidenced by the fact that we have justices like KJB who can’t tell you what a woman is, and don’t forget the “wise Latina”. Throw in the compromised Roberts and, BINGO! WE lose.
WE?
No, our leaders on both sides of the aisle, in and out of government, and in every other walk of life, are busy feathering their own nests.
Not all of them, but still too many, way too many.
The weasels, scoundrels, and crooks always find ways to live off the labor of others.
At some point, God will set things right, and that is no small thing.
Sundance, is there a possibility the SCOTUS tries to do a balancing act here?
I would think that they try to be not reactionary towards the President since he’s only in power for a limited time.
The justices are ruling on constitutional issues that could be important for years to come, so they should not be concerned with personalities. While Roberts may not like Trump, Roberts can certainly see the far-reaching effects of a decision. The other justices can, too, although KBJ might be an exception….
Nah – he doesn’t really. Obamacare. Roe.
Roberts voted in the majority in Dobbs to overturn Roe.
His Obamacare vote was supposedly to keep the Court out of the coming election. Ha. Federal judgeships have been an election issue for decades.
But I wonder if the fact that Trump is only to be president for three more years may make Roberts a little more far-sighted, not to mention Roberts having lived through four years of the Biden administration.
Might be an exception?!?
Scott Bessent believes Trump will win this case. I sure hope so.
Does the far-reaching impact of the decision include allowing a President Newsom in 2028 to declare a national climate emergency and hit every nation that does not ban oil and gasoline with a 100% tariff?
Allowing the IEEPA tariff authority is a two edged sword! I can guarantee that you won’t like what the next Democrat President will do with it!
Sunriver Patriot, We will not be a nation anymore if the Democrats gain more power.
What Democrats will do with tariffs is the least of my worries should they regain power.
@Sundance,
Are you optimistic or pessimistic?
Sundance is realistic.
And what is “realistic”…………
Are you his consigliere?
PDJT’s ace in the hole if tariffs struck down. Might work out better.
https://www.breitbart.com/economy/2026/02/12/breitbart-business-digest-the-trump-administrations-hidden-ace-to-rebalance-trade-even-if-tariffs-are-struck-down/
Take the time to read it.
Toolnut: Thank you!
President Trump most assuredly has a Plan B.
And more than likely a C, D, and…
The Trump card. Toolnut’s Breibart article above could be what President Trump has up his sleeve.
PDJT is always a step or two or three ahead of the rest of the crowd.
True. That’s one of the things the Democrats resent most about him. He’s smarter than they are. Politically more astute.
He is always underestimated. He shows them time and a time again.
You’d think they’d learn…
Interesting. I actually like that model better than what we currently are using…
I believe Trump might prefer it as well. Pros and cons wise, it may be a better tool than tariffs and easier to manage, i.e. Occam’s Razor type stuff.
I thank Toolnut for again posting it. It is an excellent read.
If the foreign government decides to charge the businesses located in their country for access to the American market, might China slap American manufacturers with a disproportionate bill to subsidize their own? It might encourage reshoring of our maufacturing moreso than just tariffs alone.
Heads I win, tails you lose.
Toolnut,Just another thank you for the informative BB link.
If SCOTUS rules against President Trump’s tariffs which have completely changed the dynamic for America being the milch cow for the rest of the world for decades, I can’t imagine the Justices sitting in the front row for the State of the Union.
Fireworks?
Definitely popcorn at least.
At least we’re spared looking at Ginsburg’s mug.
We get Brown Jackson instead 😎
I need darker sunglasses!
😂
I need a blind fold.
May The LORD GRANT Wisdom and Discernment in JESUS PRECIOUS, HOLY, & MIGHTY NAME,
AMEN, AMEN, & AMEN
Amen as per God’s will, always!
If ever there was a Supreme Court decision capable of crashing markets, this might be it.
Wall Street wants Trump to lose…
Gosh…haven’t seen you, hokkoda, in quite a while.
That might depend on what his plan B is. It might be something much worse (for them).
Unfortunately a LARGE part of America, Big City Mayors, the Majority of Congress and the Senate, China, Canada, the EU & all other Socialist Countries want Trump to lose.
Yea, hell, they don’t like the stock market at all time highs……….
Indeed. Does the SCOTUS want to carry that on their shoulders?
3 of the SC justices would happily crash the markets.
Their offshore bank accounts soothe any feelings of conscience.
Maybe SCOTUS will rule that Tariffs are a Tax.
Like ObamaCare
They’ll uphold tariffs- now that enough time has passed to be sure that they don’t have to save the country by striking them down. Prices and inflation are doing ok- future proved past, lol.
If they rule against Trump, will this be a judgement against just these tariffs, or will it be a judgement against the whole legality of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act?
Exactly; I just made a similar assertion. If Trump’s use of the act is wrong, then all uses of the Act is also wrong, and all decisions tied to the act must also be null and void.
SCOTUS looks set to back Trump’s tariffs after killer oral arguments!
Solicitor General crushes it, notes odds were against but arguments shocked folks. Points out past presidents used same powers, Court allowed tariffs no problem.
Quote nails it: “I think people were taken aback… the solicitor general’s office did an extraordinary job.” Trump’s trade leverage stays strong, crushing unfair deals worldwide.
The Court’s general philosophy is to draft as narrow a ruling as possible. So I would guess that it would only concern Trump’s order in tariffs. If the constitutionality of the entire Act was not raised on appeal, the Court would probably not address it, as issues not raise on appeal are deemed waived.
It should be a ruling against that Act, among other reasons.
There is the argument that only Congress can put in place a tariff and that it is unconstitutional for a President to do it without first having explicit Congressional authority. I do not see it that way. First, there is no mention of tariffs in the Constitution. There is mention of Congress having authority to enact duties, and it is clear that a tariff is a form of a duty. But the Constitution also says that duties enacted by Congress must be “uniform” – that is, they must be applied in the same way to every import or importer – in other words, import duties must be at the same rate for everyone, at least for the same type or category of imported product. That is clearly a definition of only one type of duty, not of all duties, and of a type that does not include tariffs used for foreign policy purposes.
The way tariffs were understood back in the 18th Century is that they were a tool of foreign policy used by an executive authority. By their very nature they will deviate from the Article 1 requirement that they be “uniform”. Foreign policy is an Article 2 power of the President (contrary to what so many in Congress, and especially in the Senate, would prefer). The President should not need Congressional approval to implement anything that is an Article 2 power. Since a non-uniform tariff put in place by the President for foreign policy purposes is not a uniform duty under Article 1, SCOTUS should affirm that President Trump’s tariffs are Constitutional. Will they do that? I don’t know, but I find it interesting that Congress did not join all those state AGs as a plaintiff in that suit.
I do not know how all those state AG’s even had standing to file their suit against the tariffs. If a registered and legal voter does not have standing to file a suit challenging some unfair aspect of election law or over real concerns about vote fraud negating their votes, then how do these state AGs have standing in this case? The standing rule seems to be based on how a judge wants to arbitrarily treat a plaintiff, not whether the plaintiff has a legitimate Statutory or Constitutional interest in an issue. Those AGs filed that suit based on politics, pure and simple, and SCOTUS should throw the case out on those grounds as well as that these tariffs are legitimate under Article 2.
Let’s stop pretending
We have a judicial monarchy that has taken on authority not provided by the Constitution …and they get away with it so long as Congress and the President afford legitimacy to the the Court’s usurped powers
Legislators must run for re-election, the President is limited to two terms, but the Federal Judiciary is for life.
I now have reconsidered the wisdom of limiting the President to two terms. The 22nd amendment was not ratified until 1951. This upset the balance of power between the co equal branch’s and has resulted in a permanent legislative class and and imperial judiciary.
Every President since the 22nd has been an immediate lame duck.
I agree. I think the state AG’s lack standing.
It’s really an issue of the interpretation of the war powers act which is between congress and the president.
Congress hasn’t taken issue, as well they shouldn’t.
The tariffs have been an extremely effective tool and the President has used them well to the betterment of the country.
My bet, the court throws it out.
SCOTUS timing their decisions according to events on the calendar?
Is that like a PR stunt?
Roberts has claimed that the Court just releases opinions when they’re ready. In reality, they probably do keep any eye on current events. If some justice claims he/she hasn’t finished writing a dissent or concurrence yet, I don’t know what Roberts could do to hustle them along – threaten to release the opinion without the dissent or concurrence, maybe?
Roberts has claimed many things that are not true.
Roberts is proven to be a fundamentally dishonest person.
I’m keeping my expectations in check….
Wise move
Something I have learned over the years that is easy to say but difficult to do:
It is impossible to be disappointed when you have no expectation.
Let SCOTUS be the ones to tell the American people that the monies that can alleviate their tax burden are being struck down because the Justices would rather be rich than abide by law.
The unelected Judiciary has been given too much leeway and power, but then, those in Congress have also increased their power.
All outside the scope of the Constitution; the Constitution creates three coequal branches of government, each with different roles. However, Congress and the Judiciary have usurped too much power; each branch allows the other to be more powerful than either at any given point in time, as long as it fattens the pocketbooks of those holding seats in the Legislature and the Judiciary. If Trump’s use of laws that have been passed and signed is illegal, then all past actions under that law are also illegal and no longer valid- including all actions tied to those decisions.
Let SCOTUS tell the American people that we are to be the world’s slaves; enough is enough.
But then, these are the same people who cry that demanding ID and proof of citizenship to vote is wrong and puts minorities in a bind, all while they demand IDs to buy cough medicine.
Exactly 💯
👉Are the American Citizens about to be ruled “property” (aka slaves) via another Dred Scott decision? 👈
If they rule against tariffs, I advocate blowing up the SCOTUS workload by taking on the Biden auto-pen issue and declared everything he did using an autopen to be null and void. Build the case, and let the lawsuits begin, and let SCOTUS see their workload blow up.
There’s a reason Trump signs EVERYTHING in front of a camera and with fanfare.
And he always flashes his signed document facing the audience so all can see and media can record his signature. He’s always 10 steps ahead of everyone.
Totally agree
The length of time they’ve sat on it makes me think we aren’t going to like the ruling.
I don’t have much faith in SCOTUS. I think they purposely work against President Trump. To make matters worse, I see them blocking tariffs the day after President Trumps State of the Union address for maximum insult. President Trump will surely announce how well tariffs are working.
If the court stabs the nation in the back – again – it will be setting the country up for a midterm failure and then we begin to spin out of control.
How to confront this:
Last chance ….
Why the drama? Tired of it. Tired of everything about government and politics. Even Republicans are matching Democrats on how to stink up everything.
The morning of Trump’s SOTU would be great!!
The tariff case (Learning Resources) is a strong possibility.
Also ripe for decision is Slaughter (whether the president can fire a board member of an “independent agency.”). The Court could overturn a New Deal precedent (Humphrey’s Executor) if it ruled in Trump’s favor. Lisa Cook’s case was just argued, but Slaughter would likely decide hers, too. (She’s the Fed Board member who lied on her mortgage application and refused to leave when Trump fired her.)
The other case that could come up is Calais, out of Louisiana, which challenged the interpretation of the 1965 Voting Right Act to require minority-majority districts. The argument was the drafting a congressional district that had a majority of voters who were a minority in the state was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause by discriminating in favor of one race.
Learning Resources, Slaughter and Calais. Watch for these.
Scotusblog.com (not affiliated with the Court) live-blogs on opinion days. Opinions start at 10 EST.
https://www.scotusblog.com/
Wethal, thank you for being dialed-in on these topics. I’m interested in Calais. In your travels/reading, do you recall the number of voting districts (i.e., House Seats) that are in play? I thought it was around 30 but haven’t been able to confirm.
I am in the camp that minority-majority districts are clearly a violation of the EPC and as someone said, “If you want to eliminate racism, stop with the racist policies.” (Or something like that)!
the federal govt raised 195 billion in customs duties in 2025, more than 250% higher than in 2024. If the Supreme Court upholds the lower court’s decision, projected net new revenue from tariff policies implemented this year will fall by abt 2.2 trillion: https://www.crfb.org/blogs/tariff-revenue-soars-fy-2025-amid-legal-uncertainty
The decision will clearly show whether they support globalism or sovereignty… will roberts betray the Republic
Roberts already called the Obamacare mandate a tax years ago. I really don’t think the other conservatives on the court want to go down that rabbit hole again. They now have the wisdom of seeing what a failure Obamacare has been. Do they want to see the country made a fool of to the rest of the world?
Actually, he said it wasn’t, and then it was a tax. A tax cannot be challenged until it has been paid, then a person sues for a refund, according to the Anti-Injunction Act. To get around this, Roberts said Obamacare premiums were not a tax as far as this Act went.
Then he said the premiums were a tax, to make them constitutional under the Congress’ taxing power. IIRC, Scalia ripped him apart on this in his (Scalia’s) dissent.
Naturally we’re all hoping for a good result, but even if it goes the wrong way it will good to finally know so other arrangements can be sought.
The Court releases opinions in the the order of reverse seniority, so the opinions of the newest, and then newer justices come first. I expect the important cases to be authored by more senior justices.
The most senior justice in the majority chooses the author of the majority opinion. If Roberts is in the majority, he is automatically senior because he’s CJ.
So if there are cases on more mundane issues released first and the majority opinion is authored by KBJ or ACB, just wait. The bigger cases could still be coming.
Total Power Play
Don’t worry, I’m sure one of the Fed appeals judges will overrule it anyhow. Lol
I was assuming they would wait till the last day of court in June to make the ruling
so then they run home and don’t have to face the blow back…
It is odd, but then there were several important cases that were argued early on, and they may be ready. Roberts once said they release opinions when they’re ready, and don’t hold the big ones to June. I’m not so sure about this.
But his explanation was that the very contentious cases take time to finish, as the justices weigh in on the majority and dissenting opinions, and may decide to agree in part, but not join in in other parts of a majority. Justices may agree with the majority result, but for different reasons, and so write a concurring opinion. Collecting all this up, editing it an having it ready for the print shop and publication can take time.
Votes can switch, too. Supposedly Roberts was with the four justices who wanted to strike down Obamacare, and then switched his vote to the four upholding it. That would have resulted in a scramble to revise the majority and dissenting opinions.
Justice Jackson in her CBS interview last week suggested the timeline for any ruling could stretch considerably given the constitutional complexity. So I don’t see any ruling coming down this week based on that comment.
If they weren’t close to a ruling last week, I don’t see how all of a sudden they came to a ruling, and the opinion and dissents would need time to be written.
I think the fake media are just pushing this latest imminent ruling crap.
The Court has listed three opinion days in the upcoming week. We usually don’t see so many opinion days close together until May or June.
It could be they’re cleaning out the “smaller” cases and the big ones are yet to come.
It could also be that Jackson is an inexperienced idiot who doesn’t understand how the Court works.
I hope you enjoy this humorous 2.5 min video on the winning applicant for the Criminal Lawyers Award Contest. Wait until the end!!!
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/humor/a-great-story/
I have no faith in SCOTUS at all
Agree that Trump has other options than tariffs: import bans and licenses. But, the question remains:
Where is the GOP to put the EO tariffs into law?
MAGA
the feckless gop water boys take their marching orders from the Godless money changers / k street lobbyists…
Easy. They want Trump to lose, same with America.
Half those on the “Supreme Court” should not even be there.
What ever happened to the Auto Pen President and every illegal action taken by staff including sitting that dumb as a bag of rock “Justice” ????
Did all the illegal actions including ?????
With all the sports gambling going on in the USA, the question is, are people gambling big money what the Supreme Court is going to do with this tarrif thing?
Two Bull Dikes.
One DEI vegetable.
One Chief closeted transvestite.
One afraid of his shadow.
One woman Chameleon.
One so so.
Two solid Constitutionalists.
Emperor Roberts is well known for his predilection of splitting the baby so that’s what I’m expecting.
He’s also known as a coward so I expect it to come after the SotU.
When is a tax not a tax is a tax? That was the question on one of the most destructive pieces of legislation in our history.
Roberts the leader of the Supreme Court, the main justice of the land….has his top aide leak the RoevWade decision. The top justice protects the criminal leaker. Kind of fitting for where we are as a country with several tiers of justice or no justice? The leader of the Supreme Court is a crook too.
“One of the most sacred principles of Western Christian civilization was the independence of an impartial judiciary”
― Ian Douglas Smith, The Great Betrayal: The Memoirs of Ian Douglas Smith
“In half a lifetime, many Americans have seen their God dethroned, their heroes defiled, their culture polluted, their values assaulted, their country invaded, and themselves demonized as extremists and bigots for holding on to beliefs Americans have held for generations. “To make us love our country, our country ought to be lovely,” said Burke. In too many ways America is no longer lovely. Though she remains a great country, many wonder if she is still a good country. Some feel that she is no longer their country. We did not leave America, they say, she left us. As Euripides wrote, “There is no greater sorrow on earth, than the loss of one’s native land.” Pat Buchanan The Death Of The West
Get ready for more betrayal.
Rule by tariff and eo may be enticing but isnt a viable strategy. Not having the support of the republican party is of course the problem.
The court does reflect the country.. abysmal.
Regardless the issue, win-or-lose President has succeeded in one important way. ALL future Presidents will be held to the same standards.
Didn’t faze the auto-pen president… And, the next Democrat president will also ignore the standards you believe to now be carved in stone.
I suspected that this decision would have leaked much like the Dobbs decision did back in 2022 which overturned Roe v. Wade. The fact that there hasn’t been a leak makes me suspect that whatever the decision is, the court is deeply divided on this case.
I have no idea why SCOTUS could object to tarriffs.
They go back to George Washington. He was the first one to use them.
Other presidents have also used tarrifs.
Then again, we got Obamacare from SCOTUS … John Roberts ….
I fail to see where that is constitutional.
SCOTUS plays politics too.
If only the SC was pro America.
Roberts is a weasel who dislikes Trump and deep down he has very leftist tendencies.
So don’t be surprised if he rules tariffs levied by the President invalid.
Which will leave the USA defenseless to be economically raped by China, the EU and Canada. Mercilessly. ‘
It defacto means the 1946 Marshall Plan can never be repealed. Unless by an act of Congress which means never.
Maybe Roberts name is redacted in some SDNY sealed Epstein file. Who knows?
Pay attention, Bessent and Ludnick have a plan and they have said so……..
My son and I wrote a commentary in American Thinker about the importance of this decision:
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2026/02/are_the_us_trade_deficits_an_emergency.html
“The Supreme Court” has no place in deciding “whether, or how,” the President may “take Care” to ensure that “the Laws are Faithfully Executed.” Congress wrote the plain text of these statutes, and in it they gave the President decisive power that is his alone to decide. This is tactical capability, delegating the decision-making on specific issues and with a specific objective. This is a diplomatic power, where Congress would not be able to act rapidly enough to deal with the “economic emergency.”
These delegated powers and prerogatives are not un-constrained . . . They are very specific.
Courts do not have “Legislative” power. Nor do they have “Executive” power. If the Congress decided to grant to the President “International Emergency Economic Powers” – including the prerogative to dictate what that “international ecomic emergency” was, and to declare that it exists – that was their decision and power to make. If you read the text of the statute, it is quite clear that what President Trump is now doing is exactly what Congress intended to authorize. He is following the letter.
Other nations “might not like it.” But, then again, they’re not supposed to.