Below is my column on the tariff decision and the question of who will pay the costs in the aftermath of the decision. While many Democratic politicians and pundits were positively gleeful about the costs, any refunds or policy changes are unlikely to follow anytime soon.
Here is the column:
Friday’s blockbuster ruling on tariffs was hardly welcomed by the Trump administration, but it was also widely expected. The Supreme Court clearly established in its 6-3 decision that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not afford presidents authority to issue sweeping, unilateral tariffs like those imposed by President Trump over the last year.
The justices fractured on other issues. And they left one issue conspicuously unaddressed: What happens to the hundreds of billions of dollars collected from these tariffs so far?
Many of us predicted that the administration would lose this fight. That view was reinforced after oral arguments, when a majority of justices raised possible reasons why the president might not possess this power.
Then again, he does possess similar powers under other laws, which the administration has already announced he will use.
Although Trump said he was “ashamed” of the conservative justices who ruled against him, their opinion is consistent with the conservative interpretive approach taken in prior statutory cases.
The majority defended Congress’s core power over the purse, maintaining the balance among the branches of our tripartite system. There were good-faith arguments on both sides, but these conservative justices ruled regardless of the political or practical repercussions, based on what they believed was demanded by the Constitution.
The most surprising votes were not the three conservatives but the three liberal justices, who historically have not been deterred by ambiguity in statutes in deferring to presidents. They have repeatedly also found delegated authority in independent agencies without worrying too much about the separation of powers.
Democratic politicians openly celebrated the loss. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) seemed elated by the prospect that the country will have to incur massive penalties, costs that could undermine the current economic growth figures. Newsom, who has led his state into a deep deficit and triggered an exodus of taxpayers, eagerly called for economic penalties for the country: “Every dollar unlawfully taken must be refunded immediately — with interest. Cough up!”
In reality, the tariffs are not going away. Trump will just have to rely on less nimble laws, but he can pursue the same policies in the name of other causes, such as securing greater market access and other concessions from foreign governments.
So what about “coughing up” those past tariff dollars? Newsom may ultimately be disappointed. Unless members want to further add to the deficit, Congress should intervene to uphold the tariffs retroactively. But that may not be possible.
Democratic politicians like Newsom are not likely to want to help Trump, even if that means wounding the national economy and the federal budget. But this may offer Republicans a unique opportunity to force such a vote. Do Democrats truly want to vote to give hundreds of billions back? There are already more than 1,000 claimants.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh dealt with the problem directly in his forceful dissent. He criticized the majority for its silence on whether or how such refunds would be made. Most pointedly, Kavanaugh noted that the federal government “may be required to refund billions of dollars to importers who paid the … tariffs, even though some importers may have already passed on costs to consumers or others.”
In other words, importers could be double-compensated if they are repaid, since, in many cases, the public paid for the tariffs in the form of higher prices. That is precisely what Democrats have been arguing for months, claiming that prices were raised to cover the added cost of the tariffs.
Trump could therefore further force the issue by offering to pay the money directly to taxpayers as a tariff bonus as part of legislation that would ratify the tariffs. Would Democrats vote against such checks for average citizens?
Even if Congress does nothing, this will take years to sort out. In the meantime, the administration has already utilized the other tariff powers recognized by the court.
What is most striking is how the very people calling to pack the Supreme Court are celebrating this decision. The court has once again shown that it continues to exercise independent judgment on important questions. Yet figures from Eric Holder and various liberal pundits will continue to demand court-packing as soon as Democrats retake control of Congress. The tariff decision exposes the dishonesty of their plan.
Democratic strategist James Carville recently cut away the pretense: “I’m going to tell you what’s going to happen,” he said. “A Democrat is going to be elected in 2028. You know that. I know that. … They’re going to recommend that the number of Supreme Court justices go from nine to 13. That’s going to happen, people.”
It is all about power and radically changing our political system. It does not matter that the Supreme Court continues to rule unanimously or near-unanimously in most cases. It also does not matter that the court continues to rule both for and against the president based on the precedent, not the politics, of cases.
For some, this decision is one of the most resounding demonstrations of the court’s continued independence. But if these Democratic politicians and pundits have their way, that independence may not last much longer.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and author of the New York Times bestseller “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
Doesn’t Trump’s tariff-taxes paid by American consumers (not paid by foreigners) make Trump the highest tax president in American history? Higher taxes than any Democrat.
No. But you should have researched that before you made a fool of yourself. The internet makes every idiot look smart.
No
Prof. Turley – excellent article.
Kudos
Its defined as an opinion piece. An opinion piece is a written article that presents the author’s personal perspective, argument, or viewpoint on a specific issue, often aiming to inform, persuade, or provoke thought. It is typically published in newspapers, magazines, or online platforms and is distinct from factual news reporting.
Are you actually trying to argue about the label used for Turley’s articles ?
Yes, it is an opinion peice, virtually all media is opinion peices anymore – there is no such thing as straight news anymore.
Journalist openly admit that they are not striving for truth or factual reporting.
Opinion pieces today tend to be CLOSER to straight news – Turley tends to ACCURATELY cover the ACTUAL facts.
while clearly ditinguishing his own analysis and views.
Turley can be trusted to get the facts straight, and to let people speak for themselves – rather than telling us his version of what they said.
Factual news reporting is virtually non-existent today.
The federal government could provide grants for same day voter IDS (no ID no problem) and same day registration at any voting place.
Since Republicans invented a voter ID problem, Trump tariff-tax refunds could finance the entire thing.
Since Republicans invented a voter ID problem
Keep with the delusions. Voter fraud happens, and the majority of Americans – even the majority of Democrats – favor voter ID.
This is the kind of issue you can’t win on. Just like with biological males in women’s sports, locker rooms, and showers, or your side’s fetish for sexual mutilation of children.
So . . . keep it up, and keep losing, loser.
And if we painted purple polka dots on cows they could fly!
I have no problem with entirely eliminating voter registration – the only benefit it provides is to the political parties.
But that would not alter the requirement to prove that you are who you claim to be and that you are eligible to vote when you come to the polls.
Absolutely no money at all would be required for this – the money saved on voter voter registration would more than pay the cost of verifying eligibility at the polls.
Of course the large precincts with tens of thousands of voters would have long lines as verifying eligability to vote at the polls can take significantly longer for many voters.
Regardless, this has nothing to do with Tariffs.
It takes 6 forms of ID to drive a snow plow in NYC.
Five.
AI Overview
When democracy was created in Athens (c. 508–507 B.C.), it was a direct democracy, but it was highly exclusive, with roughly 90% of the population excluded from voting. Voting rights were restricted to free, adult male citizens over 18 or 20, who had completed military training. Women, slaves, and non-citizens (foreigners) were entirely disenfranchised.
Key Voter Restrictions and Characteristics:
Male-Only Restriction: Only free-born men were considered citizens, excluding women and children from all political participation.
Citizenship Requirements: One had to be an Athenian-born citizen, usually requiring both parents to be from Athens.
Excluded Populations: Women, slaves (who made up a large portion of the population), and “metics” (foreign-born residents) could not vote, hold office, or participate in the Assembly.
Age and Service Constraints: Men were typically enrolled on the citizen roster at age 18 to 20, with full participation rights often restricted until they were older, such as 30 for jury duty.
Economic/Logistical Barriers: While not legal restrictions, the requirement to attend in-person meetings in the city meant poor farmers or those living far away could not easily participate.
Elite Leadership: While any citizen could speak, the top offices, such as the 10 generals, were almost exclusively occupied by wealthy, well-known men.
Only about 30,000 to 40,000 men were part of the voting demos out of a total population estimated at over 250,000.
HIGHLIGHT:
“Citizenship Requirements: One had to be an Athenian-born citizen, usually requiring both parents to be from Athens.”
Buttrack Obongo had only one parent from America, will never be a “natural born citizen,” and will never eligible to be president.
The USA is not ancient Athens. The founders thankfully REJECTED that model entirely. Barack 0bama was born in the USA, therefore he is a natural born citizen, and was eligible to the presidency. Anyone who claims otherwise is a kook and/or a liar.
Special Envoy Steve Witkoff warned Saturday that Iran could be “a week away” from having “industrial-grade bomb-making material,” raising urgent questions about what President Donald Trump could do next to address the looming threat.
https://nypost.com/2026/02/22/world-news/witkoff-warns-iran-week-away-from-bomb-making-material-as-trump-weighs-action/
Wait. I’m confused.
On June 22, 2025 Trump stated that all Iranian nuclear sites had been obliterated.
“Monumental Damage was done to all Nuclear sites in Iran, as shown by satellite images. Obliteration is an accurate term!”
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114730186433008075
Is Witkoff lying now.
Or was Trump lying in June.
Inquiring minds want to know.
Okay so you suffer from TDS, which is why your question is nonsensical.
Neither
What are you confused about. Those two statements are not inconsistent.
They are not close to a nuclear weapon, they are close to a “dirty bomb”.
They have had the ability to make a dirty bomb for a very long time – that is not new.
The only means to prevent a dirty bomb is either to invade or negotiate broad inspection powers.
Regardless, if Iran is looking at a dirty bomb it is a sign of desparation.
Dirty bomb? ROLF! Man, the assumptions.
Iran won’t attack anyone directly or use dirty bombs. They have had the capability for DECADES to use one. They are not stupid. Trump is, obviously.
Negotiate broad inspection powers? We HAD broad inspection powers until Trump sh!t all over it when he went ahead and upended Obama’s carefully negotiated agreement with Iran.
If Trump invades Iran we WILL be in another long Afghanistan style problem. Iran is not Iraq and they definitely will not capitulate as easily as they did.
Trump is going about it the wrong way, like everything he does is.
We lost any credibility with Iran when Trump tore up the agreement Obama negotiated. Iran as complying with everything until Trump pulled the rug from under the Iranians. It’s his fault for making things worse. Now he’s looking for a distraction from the Epstein files and the lackluster economy he’s presiding over. Republicans will once again engage in another war that Democrats will have to clean up. History will repeat itself. Because we never learn.
Rafael Grossi, Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)noted that Iran had failed to provide technically credible explanations for the presence of man-made uranium particles at three undeclared sites – Varamin, Marivan and Turquzabad – despite years of consultations.
Based on its assessments, IAEA can conclude that these three locations were part of a structured nuclear programme that operated until the early 2000s and involved undeclared nuclear material, he said.
Three undeclared locations that the IAEA found – seems to indicate that it is Iran that has a lack of credibility.
Ouiji board stuff again eh george?
So you think you know as a fact that they no longer … when you restate someone’s else opinion, quote them You fraud.
Never using a spelling checker is also a sign of desperation.
WINNING!!!
Kash Patel is by far the best FBI Director we have ever had.
Here he is tirelessly running down criminal illegal aliens to keep us all safe.
https://bsky.app/profile/ronfilipkowski.bsky.social/post/3mfiehe2onc2f
https://bsky.app/profile/ronfilipkowski.bsky.social/post/3mfiemssh622f
That is not the job of the FBI.
it is not, nor is eating, sleeping, going out to dinner.
Patel is free to celebrate the US hockeyteam victory in the olympics.
But he owes Wray an appology for his sometimes personal use of a government jet.
Patel has problems – this is not one of those.
Sign this idiot for the Kimbil show. deep thinker here.
It is not the FBI’s job to deport illegal aliens.
You have a problem with Patel stopping by the Olympics to celebrate the US hockey team victory over the Canadians ?
The only issue here is that Patel was highly critical of Wray for the use of a government aircraft for travel that was atleast partly personal.
Patel is learning that if you are in Europe on government business and you want to go to italy for personal reasons, that it does not make sense to leave your government plane in Switzerland, fly commercial along with a 30 person security detail to Italy and then return commercial to Switzerland to come home.
Patel has some problems, celebrating with the US hockey team is not one of those.
“The FBI stated the trip was pre-planned to include meetings with Italian law enforcement and security officials regarding the Olympic games”
Were the people they were meeting in the hockey team locker room? Why fly to Switzerland to meet with Italian law enforcement?
Patel is like some guy at my work who would turn in receipts for dry cleaning 6 suits on a 2 day trip or claim a bar tab as a “meal.” His job is to reduce credibility of the FBI and he’s doing a great job of it.
I just hate people who drink beer; ergo, I hate myself, just like you hate yourself!
Why do brewers advertise beer on TV?
To recruit liberals.
Just food for thought.
I have mixed feeling about this SCOTUS decision. While little-ole-me/ I defer to the Court’s conclusion, I do not like the tone of it.
(1) First, I did not like the tone of its cursory dismissal of the relevance of the Yoshida case before CCPA (“cannot bear the weight placed on it” by a specialized, intermediary court ) and the subsequent tweaking of TWEA to accommodate, ex post facto, Nixon’s tariffs.
I regret that SCOTUS doesn’t seem to have a way to remand to the Federal Circuit (successor to CCPA) and to Congress for more clarification/delineation of IPEEA’s parameters before dispositively placing fault on Trump. -Perhaps a little more discussion of the non-delegation doctrine and inadequate/lack of “intelligible principles” in the IPEEA.
Congress is the branch that legislated the inadequate and equivocal language of the IPEEA.
(2) Regarding the potential “mess” created by any refund on the collected $ billions defined as a “tax,” perhaps a good starting point would be looking at SCOTUS’s 2008 decision, UNITED STATES v. CLINTWOOD ELKHORN MINING, having claimants pursue refunds through IRS for EXPORT taxes they paid that were later found unconstitutional).
“”We therefore hold that the plain language of 26 U.S.C. §§ 7422(a) and 6511 requires a taxpayer seeking a refund for a tax assessed in violation of the Export Clause, JUST AS FOR ANY OTHER UNLAWFULLY ASSESSED TAX [emphasis mine], to file a timely administrative refund claim before bringing suit against the Government.” Such that “…allegations of taxes unlawfully assessed—whether the asserted illegality is based upon the Export Clause OR ANY OTHER PROVISION OF LAW [emphasis mine] —are processed in an orderly and timely manner, and that costly litigation is avoided when possible.” 553 U.S. 1 at 23 and 19, respectively.
And more fundamentally:
Perhaps you could explain how the Supreme Court found that Social Security and Medicare are constitutional.
Both were never dreamed of under the American Founders and nonexistent for 146 and 176 years, respectively, or until 1935 and 1965.
There is no citable legal basis in the Constitution for Congress to tax for the benefit of 18.7% of the population; Congress may tax for only debt, defense, and general welfare.
The Supreme Court could find that Congress controls tariffs, but it couldn’t find that Congress cannot tax for, fund, or regulate the financial services and healthcare insurance industries, specifically retirement income and healthcare plans.
(Sorry, I don’t understand your premise. I believe both programs were passed by Congress under the “general welfare” provision of the Spending and Commerce clauses? ANd both financial sectors and healthcare insurance industries ARE regulated (e.g., FDIC and HHS).
It seems SCOTUS left it out for Congress to correct the IEEPA’s. “Flaw” because it’s the job of Congress to correct it. Not the court.
Refunds should be claimed first to the IRS, that is the correct path, but…if the IRS refuses to issue refunds because Trump doesn’t want to. Then those who are owed can sue the government for full refunds.
And I agree. (And I forgot to mention Algonquin case.)
I understand the decision, major question and all, but I think the conclusion/decision was overkill and could have been much more concise/informative/constructive to (1) point out Congress’s flawed lack or inadequacy of any “intelligible principles;” (2) conclude that Trump’s authority for tariffs would be constrained or limited by EXISTING provisions in other statutes/cases (e.g., Sec. 122, see attached link) and (3) unless and until CONGRESS amends IEEPA to clarify its parameters.
Instead, the decision forces a Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Collect $200, go back to Start overkill (-albeit Trump’s one-up-manship,
retaliatory, and tit-for-tat approach to tariffs, -but even that might not be reviewable under CIT’s Florsheim case)
In sum, I conclude that the dissent was equally persuasive as the majority; I understand the majority’s logic (Kagan’s “text-in-context” addition noted) but I thought the resolution was overkill.
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:19%20section:2132%20edition:prelim)%20OR%20(granuleid:USC-prelim-title19-section2132)&f=treesort&edition=prelim&num=0&jumpTo=true
. Lin, you’re an insurance attorney? Looking at 19 USC 2132 only tells me that lawyers have overly complicated the law as a means of feathering their nest making themselves indispensable. Can 80% of the House read and understand the link you’ve provided?
. Justia has an upgrade chap 19.
I think the thing is a mess. DJT is correct in my humble opinion although the string of events as trade act expired 2010 and obamas attempted extension 2012 events is unkn.
Intelligible principle would be emergency? At 35 trillion it’s one big emergency and how bad we’ll find out when out of food and energy –> do nothing congress . Constant ongoing emergency…
Thanks, Lin.
Food for thought eh? I just puked.
GOOD FOR THE COUNTRY OR GOOD FOR MY DISTRICT?
_______________________________________________________________
“In summary, President Trump bypassed Congress at the outset because he viewed executive action as the only way to achieve the speed and leverage necessary to overhaul U.S. trade policy. By relying on emergency powers, he avoided a divided Congress where many members—prioritizing the immediate economic interests of their local districts and their own re-election—were unwilling to support broad tariffs that could be cast as domestic tax hikes. This tension culminated in the February 20, 2026, Supreme Court ruling, which effectively ended the President’s ability to act alone. The administration now characterizes the situation as a choice between its “America First” national strategy and a Congress it views as prioritizing political survival over national economic strength.”
– Gemini
____________
Republican Opposition (The Critical Swing Votes)
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE)
Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME)
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
Rep. Thomas Massie
Democratic Leadership (The Legislative Block)
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR)
Rep. Richard Neal (D-MA)
Rep. Angie Craig (D-MN)
. OT: One last comment about the NUES- Andrew formerly known as prince is being flayed for allegedly having consorted with a 17.5 year old hostess. I’ve never seen so much interest in nor punishment of anyone for such. Lock him in the Tower of London next? The House is hysterical while the same people couldn’t explain to anyone what the WTO is or the Federal Reserve purpose or MFN or much of anything else.
I have to get back to watching paint peel. If anyone wants the courts opinion from now on just Google it for the popular consensus.
Well, she was just seventeen,
You know what I mean,
And the way she looked was way beyond compare,
So how could I dance with another,
Oh when I saw her standing there
. No female should be used with or without consent is the bottom line.
^^^ test case is birth citizenship. Google takes it for granted. It’s obviously the popular consensus but not necessarily the truth.
Turley sure loves to leave out uncomfortable dirty truths and in this case SCOTUS’s minority opinion. Legal experts and long time Supreme Court observers noted the glaring hypocrisy of Justice Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh. The staunch followers of textualist philosophy who sought to carve out an exemption for Trump in the face of the major questions doctrine. Thomas’s argument fell largely on the law’s intent instead of plain language of the law. It’s funny how Thomas and Alito insist on applying strict textual interpretation of the law when a Democrat president is in office, and set it aside when a Republican president is on office. A fact justice Gorsuch pointed out in his concurring opinion.
It was obvious the losing minority wanted to create a carve out for Trump. But, that pesky major questions doctrine, a conservative creation got in the way. Not only did this ruling expose the “originalists” and “Textualists” need for exemptions when a Republican is president. Pretty wild stuff and Turley completely ignored it of course.
The illegal taxes Trump imposed on importers will have to be refunded one way or another. It is virtually guaranteed importers will sue to get that money back. What is funny is Trump’s suddenly being more honest about how much money “we made” got reduced from trillions as he claimed to mere billions.
Trump is already declaring all kinds of powers he doesn’t have in a fit of rage towards the Supreme Court.
Now Turley along with most MAGA pundits and apologists are looking for excuses to dismiss this ruling as nothing but an inconvenience. It’s much more than that, it’s a serious restriction on Trump’s ability to impose tariffs. It also robbed him of any leverage he supposedly had in negotiations, if there were any of any significance.
Alito and Thomas and KAvanaugh were wrong and hypocritical.
Just as Kagan, Sotomayor and Jackson were right and hypocritical.
Roberts was hypocritical because his VALID decision in this case would have wiped ObamaCare out TWICE.
So we have established that Supreme court justices can be right and hypocritical and wrong and hypocritical.
What is new ?
Fortunately the decision was RIGHT.
I could care less about the tariffs.
The odds of refunds are near zero, And as Turley said the simplest Thing for Trump to do is ask Congress to refund them to US tax payers.
Or an even batter suggestion – Ask congress to impose a 20% tariff on the entire rest of the world – no excptions, while allowing the PResident using other existing powers to increase that Tariff for nations that engage in unfair trade.
And then use the funds from the 20% tariff to eliminate all income tax on everyone with an AGI less than 250,000/yr
That would mean that 95% of people would not have to file a tax return. Most small businesses would pay no taxes.
People could then CHOOSE to buy foreign goods at prices that included the tariff, or buy american and pay no tax.
This is almost exactly the circumstances that the US had in the early 20th century.
This would clean tax laws up radically – it would get rid of the complex issues with “no taxes on tips” or “no taxes on social secutiry”
I am fine with both, but it is even better to just have no taxed on income below 250,000.
Arguably it might not ever require a 20% Tariff to make up for the last revenue.
The return to productive use of the hundreds of millions of hours americans spend filling their taxes would boost standard of living.
And the savings by radically shrinking the IRS might come close to paying for this without Tariffs.
Ordinary people would STILL contribute to funding government, but they would be doing so through the tariffs on foreign purchases.
A national sales tax in leiu of Incometax would be even batter – it would make voters aware that when government spends money THEY are going to have to pay for atleast part of it.
John Say, for someone who doesn’t care about tariffs you sure want to use them more harshly than Trump.
Tariffs choke off free trade. Trump still thinks other countries pay the tariffs. He’s already hurt soybean farmers and the cattle industry.
You want to impose a 20% tax on U.S. importers and consumers? I thought taxation was theft. Trump’s illegal tariffs are literally theft. Refunds should be issued. But I’m still confused by why you suddenly suggested a 20% worldwide tariff which IS a tax on U.S. companies and consumers.
Taxation is theft, right? Or have you changed your mind about that perspective?
It looks like you want it impose a Laffer style of taxation scheme. We all know it won’t work. It never has. The poorest would bear the brunt of it and that is never a good thing. A national sales tax would hit Red states hardest and I’m pretty sure they would reject such an idea.
The wealthiest will never pay more than their fair share with a “national sales tax” especially when they can pay legislators to carve out exemptions for themselves. What an idiotic idea.
John Say is part of or a creation of a Russian propaganda arm of the FSB. His sole function is disruption.
. Democrats have taught me to hate, most unfortunate.
Thomas in particular is far far more likely to be right – especially when he is dissenting than any other justice.
Usually is not the same as always.
You left wing nuts pretend that everyone who disagrees with you is some monolithic block of deplorable brainwashed morons.
But that clearly is not so. The conservatives on the court split over tariffs.
That is not some sign of a civil war in the GOP.
You are correct to note that the minority – Thomas an Alito particularly were out of kilter with originalism 0 though I would note, there has not been a tariff imposed since 1934 that went through congress. Every single Tariff since then was imposed by the President.
So there is little doubt Congress has delegated significant Tariff policy to the president.
The question in this case was NOT constitutional – No One disagreed that the power to Tariff is constitutionally that of Congress.
The question in THIS case was did IEEPA delegate broad tariff power to the president.
The answer – which has nothing to do with originalism – though it is textualist is that The plain text of IEEPA did not delegate broad tariff power to the president. As Turley noted – congress has with other laws delegated a great deal of Tariff power to the president – without question.
Just not via IEEPA.
Mostly this is NOT an originalist question, it is a normal question of statutory interpretation of a modern law.
I would further note that this was decided on the basis of the “major questions doctrine”.
I personally have a problem with the “major questions doctrine”
It should be the ALL questions doctrine – congress must ALWAYS be clear in delegating power to the executive,
Further – I am more a propoent of non-delegation – that Congress can NOT delegate its powers to the executive.
“The illegal taxes Trump imposed on importers will have to be refunded one way or another. ”
Nope. As turley notes the simplest solution to the “refund” issue is to refund the money to tax payers.
“It is virtually guaranteed importers will sue to get that money back.”
With certainty. They may win at some levels and lose at others.
Ultimately they have a huge problems proving that the injury of the Tariffs was born by them.
Importers paid the taxes, but importers did NOT eat the cost.
They would have to prove they did to get a refund.
“What is funny is Trump’s suddenly being more honest about how much money “we made” got reduced from trillions as he claimed to mere billions.”
The claim was ONE Trillion, the Reality is about 380B but strictly due to IEEPA is between 100-200B other authorities were already used for about half of tariffs.
“Trump is already declaring all kinds of powers he doesn’t have in a fit of rage towards the Supreme Court.”
So – he still does not have them – and contra left wing nuts he has obeyed to courts – even when they are wrong.
A bit of rventing does not make you a dictator, grabbing and holding power than that you do not have even after the courts have found against you – is totalitarian.
“Now Turley along with most MAGA pundits and apologists are looking for excuses to dismiss this ruling as nothing but an inconvenience.”
The ruling itself is MAJOR far far beyond Trump or Tariffs. It is a significant constraint of future presidents – especaially those on the left.
I am very very happy with the ruling.
But the impact with respect to Tariffs is inconsequntial.
Trump has proven that Tariffs do NOT tank the economy. That they are a viable source of revenue – though only about 1/3 of what he hoped.
That is likely to change US taxation in the future.
” It’s much more than that, it’s a serious restriction on Trump’s ability to impose tariffs.”
It is a bit more than a speed bump.
” It also robbed him of any leverage he supposedly had in negotiations”
So you are OK with unfair trade ?
The debate over the extent of the presidents Tariff power is over.
The debate over holding our trading partners accountable for unfair trade is far from over.
As Turley noted – Republicans can vote tomorow to bless Trump’s Tariffs.
What democrat is going to vote against them ?
The circumstantiality of disordered thinking is on full display here.
John, the importers who actually paid these illegal tariffs are clearly entitled to a full refund, regardless of how much they were able to recoup by raising prices. How could it possibly be otherwise? The customers didn’t pay the IRS, so why should they get a refund? They were confronted with an increased price for the goods they wanted, and they decided whether to buy them at the higher price or leave them on the shelf. It doesn’t matter why the importer increased the price.
As for delegation, Congress has to delegate rule making to the executive. It’s impossible for Congress to make all the necessary regulations, set all the rates for everything, etc. That’s always been the case, even in the 1790s. Congress sets the general policy, and leaves it to the executive to work out the details by regulation.
Congress could easily have written the IEEPA so that instead of “regulate imports and exports” it would say “regulate or tax imports, and regulate exports” (since taxing exports is unconstitutional). But it didn’t.
They wish to bow and scrape before their Monarch.
Let’s see if I have this right–the SCOTUS opinion was no big deal because the outcome was predicted, so why are Democrats pleased with the ruling? Democrats would “wound” the United States and taxpayers by demanding that the monies taken unlawfully be reimbursed to the importers who paid them, because we can’t trust importers to lower prices if their costs go down–we can assume they won’t pass along the savings like they passed along the increased cost. Why? There is such a thing as competition in the marketplace. Therefore, Republicans should try to retroactively approve the tariffs*to prevent those evil Democrats from harming Americans. Or, maybe, Democrats could end up paying the political price if Trump wanted to send checks directly to consumers an Democrats opposed this move. But, hasn’t it always been the case that if the government took money or something of value from someone, they had to pay it back to the party from whom it was taken–not some third party. And, although the average American family has had to pay about $1,700 more last year, some paid more and some paid less–so how is averaging the fair way to address Trump’s wrongdoing. Did I get that right?
That’s the sort of BS logic that you get from MAGA media–Democrats are ALWAYS wrong. And, you claim there is a “derangement” regarding Trump?
Turley doesn’t address the real reason for the tariffs–Trump’s ego. He wants a cudgel to force the CEOs of large companies that import goods and leaders of other countries to kiss up to him, give him presents and beg for exemptions. He LOVES and that power that feeds his massive ego. Turley also doesn’t address the SCOTUS holding that proves Trump lied–they held that tariffs are a tax on the American people. Turley also doesn’t discuss the effect of the arbitrary tariffs on our economy or our relations with our trading partners. He probably couldn’t come up with some way to spin these things positively for Trump and against Democrats.
*seens to me that I’ve heard about something called “ex post facto” laws. If ex post facto laws cannot be used to retroactively make something that WAS legal illegal, I don’t see how they could be used to make something that WAS illegal legal.
ROFL
All president love power – what is new ?
All presidents also care about their legacy.
Trump clearly wants his face carved on Mt Rushmore.
While that is unlikely
to be remembers as a great president Trump must accomplish big things.
Restoring fair trade would be a major contributor to a strong positive legacy.
Presidents love power.
But they are remembered and want to be remembered for how they use that power.
What they accomplish.
Getting your a$$ kissed alot is not an accomplishment that people remember.
Only ex post facto criminal laws are barred. Retroactive taxes are constitutional.
OT
“I’m not trying to impress you, I’m just trying to impress upon you, I’m like you. I’m no better than you. You know, I’m a 960 SAT guy… you’ve never seen me read a speech because I cannot read a speech.”
– Gavin Newsom To Atlanta Mayor Andre Dickens
_______________________________________________________
AI Overview
Average SAT scores in 2024-2025 in America
Asian: 1229
White: 1100
Latino: 928
Pacific Islander: 922
African: 904
Indian: 881
Plus he has no idea on how to get his birth cert?
I bet he has a pass-port. What a fool.
DustOff,
A 0.05 search resulted in this, Obtaining Certified Copies of Birth Certificates
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CHSI/Pages/Vital-Records-Obtaining-Certified-Copies-of-Birth-Records.aspx
Three different ways,
1) Mail in
2) In person
3) Electronic
Same thing in my birth state and the state I currently live in, three ways to Obtaining Certified Copies of Birth Certificates.
Dear Prof Turley,
Obviously, tariffs, taxes and death are not going away anytime soon. Trump will just have to rely on less nimble laws to pursue the same policies .. . such as inflationary pressure, widening social disparity, global economic destabilization, Unitary Executive Authority and other personal random whims and picadilloes.
The SCOTUS ruling does not, necessarily, imply judicial ‘independence’. As Trump points out, they could be under the sway of foreign governments and/or the 1000+ U.S. importers. At the very least, they, and their families, should be ashamed.
In any case, the excess taxes have almost certainly been absorbed by the American people (more the poor ones, than the rich ones.). It would be doubly wrong to refund these monies to the U.S. importers or use the U.S. treasury to do so.
*the only logical solution is for Trump to refund this money personally . .. out of his own pocket.
Being president means being a caretaker of good government. Trump ignored that responsibility and got us into this mess. The blame is only on him, and it is his job to fix.
Trump got us into this mess. Try 4 years of Biden and get back to us.
Turley writes about the fact everyone pretty much knew Trump’s tariffs were going to be struck down by SCOTUS, except…Trump. He went on a rampage and unilaterally imposed an additional 5% on his world-wide tariffs because he was mad.
The vindictiveness and petty need to lash out by punishing everyone because he got checked by SCOTUS is pathetic.
I can only imagine how much rage and anger he will impugn on the nation when Democrats take control of Congress and start investigating his corruption and doing the work Republicans have refused to do…act as a check on Trump’s power.
MAGA is already reciprocating Trump’s ire with SCOTUS and predictably is lashing out at the court for hampering their dear leader’s power to unilaterally impose tariffs whenever he feels he’s been slighted or whomever has “insulted” him. Trump seems more like King George III than a president.
The question is no longer whether these Tariffs are good policy – whether you like it or not Trump has MASSIVELY won that argument.
The question was whether Trump had the borad power under IEEPA to levy those tariffs – the correct answer was NO.
Trump is relying on more cumbersome authorities to fill the gap, but ultimately he will have to go to congress.
And you are brain dead if you think Congress is going to allow $300B in revenue to slip away
The Professor specifically enables comments for several reasons. Among them is that we readers get a cross section of what those who choose to come here are thinking. It at times is hilariously entertaining
And it is often sadly entertaining when the mental illness of the MAGA cultists is on full display.
ad hominem, non sequitur.
Can you address the actual topic ?
Or even any legitimate topic beyond character assassination ?
John Say,
“ad hominem, non sequitur.
Can you address the actual topic ?
Or even any legitimate topic beyond character assassination ?”
No. They cannot. As I was informing “Steve” earlier, just best to ignore and scroll past the anonymous. Their comments are generally no value added to real conversation.
This blog also censors the comments they really don’t like.
Love seeing tired old relics from the past (Carville) making predictions again, like they/he did about Kacklin’ Kammie and Tampon Timmy winning in 2024.
Reminds me of Tom Hanks “guaranteeing” Trump would never be elected as POTUS in 2016.
But I feel most secure in the knowledge that, if Democrats were to ever regain control of both Congress and the presidency again, and they tried to either confiscate firearms or pack the court, the result would be fast, furious and very very bad for them. 😉
U.S. consumers were the ones who were wounded. Corporations reflected tariffs in the cost on the shelf. Americans paid 90% of the increases out of pocket. I’ll wager we’re not getting nuthin’ back. And we still don’t have health care.
What does “we still don’t have health care” mean?
The data shows that very little costs were passed to consumers, it also shows that very little of the costs were born by importers.
Most were eaten by foreign exporters.
“And we still don’t have health care.”
We do not have free housing either, or unicorns.
Healthcare is not a right, nor is housing or unicorns.
You have the healthcare you can pay for,
Just as you have the housing you can pay for
and the car you can pay for.
By the sweat of your brow you will earn your daily bread
Genesis 3:19
The tariffs which the SCOTUS struck down were tariffs under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). What was the national emergency with Brazil, a country with which the US has a trade surplus? Why was it a national emergency when the President of the Swiss Confederation, a woman, talked to Trump in a way which the President didn’t like, triggering tariffs of 39%? Why were tariffs declared on imports from the Bailiwick of Guernsey, a territory of the United Kingdom that has no permanent human population on some of its islets? In fact, how could one credibly declare a national emergency when the US is the hottest country in the world where foreigners plan to invest $18 trillion in production? When the President frequently declares that “we are doing so great, better than ever before”?
You’re blatantly lying. But isn’t that what Nazis always do? Remember the holocaust. You’re directly responsible.
Please point me to the lies.
Your 11:00 comment. Right in front of your nose.
For the record, do you accept responsibility for the holocaust?
To be sure: my 11:00 comment listed 5 questions, not a single statement. Statements could be construed as lies, questions should be answered in civil discourse.
Don’t know why the tariffs but Guernsey has dairy cattle.
Flew over the a great views on return trip from Britian, originating in Gatwick.
So from 10,000 feet you saw all the dairy cattle? Damn good eyesight. How many are there? Notice any methane gas when you flew over?
I once saw Cyprus from the air on a Singapore to Frankfurt flight, and a few days later, on a flight from Frankfurt to NYC, I saw Jersey. Both islands have distinctive shapes that can’t be missed or mistaken for any other island.
Two things can be true at once.
What “customary” way of regulating imports is there other than tariffs? Did anyone in the majority give an example?
JVR
Apparently you are not aware of the obvious fact, plainly known to any intelligent individual, that tariffs are the least effective and least commonly used method to regulate imports.
There are a great multitude of much more effective mechanisms available to governments to regulate imports.
Here is a very short list of some. There are many others.
Absolute Quotas: A hard cap on the volume or value of a specific good allowed into the country.
Embargoes & Sanctions: Total bans on trade with specific countries or for certain goods
Voluntary Export Restraints (VERs): Agreements where the exporting nation “voluntarily” limits its own shipments to avoid harsher measures.
Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Measures: Rules to ensure human, animal, and plant safety
Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT): Regulations on product characteristics, labeling, packaging, and mandatory testing/certification.
Local Content Requirements: Rules requiring a certain percentage of a product’s value to be produced domestically.
Public Procurement Policies: “Buy National” laws that require government agencies to prioritize domestic products over imports.
Import Licensing: Requirement for a specific government permit to import certain goods.
Currency Controls: Restricting access to foreign exchange, making it difficult for importers to pay foreign suppliers.
Exchange Rate Manipulation: Devaluing the national currency to make imports more expensive and domestic exports more competitive.
Import Deposits: Requirements for importers to place a non-interest-bearing deposit with the central bank for a set period before goods can be cleared
So which of these, if any, are available as “customary” ways of regulating imports under IPEEA?
. PT, it makes sense now because Justices are using Google for their opinions. It takes a human brain to say that just doesn’t make sense or that’s illogical as in regular forces or call in army before NG, or tariffs and the major question when major question wasn’t the question and the popular opinion will be seen again in birth right which isn’t the truth. When Google is questioned about its honesty it replies it uses popular consensus and is not always truthful.
DJT only needs to Google from now on. No need to bother SCOTUS. Shout out to Alito and Thomas both always using their human brains.
Adios, sayonara, ciao, Auf vedersehn , gbye ♥
Try that in English instead of whatever language that was.
Sorry I didnt mean felonies I meant crimminal law including misdemeanors.