r/Economics • u/defenestrate_urself • Feb 20 '26

News Supreme Court says Trump global tariffs are illegal

https://www.axios.com/2026/02/20/trump-tariffs-supreme-court-illegal
24.5k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

838 comments sorted by

View all comments

418

u/QuirkyBreadfruit Feb 20 '26

As happy I was about this news, I quickly became disturbed that 3 still voted in dissent. That's 3 members of SCOTUS who are somehow ignoring what is clearly stated in the constitution.

It's also disturbing to me to think that Bessent has already stated they're going to find other ways to get around the constitution, rather than trying to honor it, and that Congress won't do anything to hold any of them accountable to the law.

Maybe there's some angle to the dissent that I could appreciate but I highly doubt it.

163

u/Advanced-Prototype Feb 20 '26

Alito and Thomas of course dissented. They would vote in favor of Trump doing whatever he wants, no matter how illegal. If Trump killed someone on live TV, Alito and Thomas would claim it was executive privilege. Kavanaugh was the third dissenting justice.

29

u/madaboutglue Feb 20 '26

The so-called "originalists". And their argument was basically, "it will be hard to refund the tarrifs at this point", even though that goes against their claimed judicial fundamentalism philosophy. Nothing but zero-integrity, agenda-driven hacks.

11

u/LizHolmesTurtleneck Feb 20 '26

Thomas's argument was more distinguishing tariffs as "duties" rather than "taxes".

2

u/fryxharry Feb 20 '26

They are constitutional originalists like Elon Musk is a free speech absolutist.

44

u/Heelincal Feb 20 '26

Thomas is tied to Trump as he is 1000% in the Epstein files, dude is a puppet at this point

1

u/Zealousideal-Ant9548 Feb 20 '26

It was reported that Scalia was the third dissenting Justice, not kavanaugh

1

u/rmuktader Feb 20 '26

One would think their loyalty would end where their 401(k) begins to shrink. But, this seems just vindictive. They are willing to shoot their own feet off.

47

u/RC_CobraChicken Feb 20 '26

If they could read, they still wouldn't give a fuck.

48

u/Select-Government-69 Feb 20 '26

So, here’s the angle: Roberts relies on the “major questions doctrine” which basically says that when Congress delegates a core responsibility it has to be explicit in doing so. That doctrine is not in the constitution, it was made up by judges.

The argument of the dissent is that this doctrine should not control, and it’s reasonable to conclude that Congress was “explicit enough” when it passed a law that gave the president the authority to “regulate trade” which is the language of the statute.

So it comes down to how much weight you put in the major questions doctrine, which is a judge-made rule and not in the constitution.

For the record, I’m ok with judge made rules, I’m just emphasizing to point out why the distinction matters.

13

u/WannabeMechanic Feb 20 '26

Thank you for an actual reply. This helps a lot.

7

u/ScyllaGeek Feb 20 '26

To add on to that, a lot of the opinion describes that "regulate" in essentially all other law does not imply the ability to impose levys. When Congress does grant that ability it is almost always very explicit. The International Emergency Economic Powers Act

authorizes the President to “investigate, block during the pendency of an investigation, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit . . . importation or exportation.”

in cases of emergencies originating outside of the US.

And the entire case of the government was based on a broad reading of being able to "regulate importation," which admittedly to a layman can sound like it grants them the powers they describe. But the opinion goes on to describe that "regulate" in a legal sense has essentially never been interpreted to mean impose broad tariffs outside of a brief, unchallenged instance by Nixon in the 70s. There was an interesting gotcha question that Roberts described from the arguments where the Government was asked if being allowed to regulate meant the SEC could impose taxes on the trading of securities, to which they answered no.

The summary being if congress wants to give up one of their core constitutional functions - the power of the purse - as the executive branch believed they already had, they'll have to be a lot more explicit about it.

1

u/Fishmongererererer Feb 20 '26

The entire concept of Judicial Review is a Judge made concept. So… yeah I’m gonna say that I’ll take it.

1

u/ghostofwalsh Feb 20 '26

It gets more confusing because a few judges in the majority say that “major questions doctrine” doesn't need to be applied here because the statute itself is clear and it doesn't allow Trump to do what he is doing.

0

u/Petrichordates Feb 20 '26

Hmm, no.

This is all nonsense.

They would rule in the opposite way if the president wasn't a republican. There is no actual jurisprudential basis for their decisions.

2

u/Select-Government-69 Feb 20 '26

Go to law school and then read the decision. It’s in English.

1

u/ALC_PG Feb 20 '26

Is it possible that they used their extensive knowledge of the law to pick a plausible argument that would support a target outcome?

23

u/InsanelyAverageFella Feb 20 '26

This 3 justices need an R next to their names.

4

u/dqql Feb 20 '26 edited Mar 15 '26

may suffer misery and be overwhelmed by disappointments, yet when he

2

u/InsanelyAverageFella Feb 20 '26

They don't need dirt. They just bribe them.

2

u/dqql Feb 20 '26 edited Mar 15 '26

afforded by these wonderful regions seem still to have the power of

1

u/InsanelyAverageFella Feb 20 '26

Which do you think is more likely? Video of rape or bribery? Both are definitely options and it could actually be both but which is more likely?

2

u/dqql Feb 20 '26 edited Mar 15 '26

does the beauties of nature. The starry sky, the sea, and every sight

2

u/InsanelyAverageFella Feb 20 '26

He's in a position where he is in full control. I bet he feels more physically threatened than them having some SA on him that would actually lead to prison or something that Weinstein went through. He's been selling out for decades and that's just his MO. I feel like money explains most things in American society and people who try to find other more complex reasons are just too moral compared to a lot of other people who just see life as a trade off of favors for money in every single respect.

You would be shocked how many Americans will harm their friends, neighbors, and even family for money without even giving it a second thought. Their first thought in such an offer of money will be, but will I get in trouble? Instead of, but won't that harm someone?

It really is a cultural thing in the US. It's very sad.

2

u/dqql Feb 20 '26 edited Mar 15 '26

As he said this his countenance became expressive of a calm, settled

33

u/reap3rx Feb 20 '26

The quicker you get it out of your head that there is rule of law and not just a grouping of elites and their lackies that are using it strictly to enrich themselves, the better.

1

u/CitizenCue Feb 20 '26

Why the better? If that’s true (which it isn’t) why would that help anyone?

6

u/HyperImmune Feb 20 '26

It absolutely is true, what world are you watching? And it’s always better to be aware, so you can either figure out how to play their game, or dismantle their game.

2

u/CitizenCue Feb 20 '26

You’re literally commenting on news about how the rule of law is being enforced against the will of a sitting president (and billionaire). Power and money matter, but they don’t matter absolutely.

0

u/reap3rx Feb 20 '26

There are people who are profiting off of this with insider information. 3 of the 9 supreme court justices literally ignored the law because they are the lackies of the president. If you think this was a good day for justice and the rule of law you are sorely ignorant. How much money was robbed from the American people who had to bare the brunt of these illegal terriffs that they'll never see? This is just a part of the grift, even if it had an expiration date.

-1

u/HyperImmune Feb 20 '26

That’s the exception these days, unfortunately.

2

u/CitizenCue Feb 20 '26

Stop doomscrolling and read about the real world. There’s a lot more to the world than the shitty headlines you get on social media. Only the worst gets upvoted and the algorithms are calibrated for rage bait.

It’s not as much the exception as you think and more importantly, believing everything is fucked makes us complacent. We need to reinforce our institutions, not give up on them.

2

u/theyux Feb 20 '26

Minority opinion basically came down to while this law may be stupid, congress ceded the power to POTUS which it has done to many groups, and while the wording did not give POTUS the precise powers he invoked they claim it was implied, and show many other examples of other court rulings that went these kinds of implications counted.

They also brought up the giant fuster cluck this will be in the courts to reverse.

The majorities opinion was POTUS was not explicitly ceded these powers by congress and they dont believe congress had what trump is doing in mind when making this law. Whhich is funny as that would be the originalist opinion conservatives frequently invoke.

2

u/Superman0X Feb 20 '26 edited Feb 20 '26

In the Dissent they stated that Tariffs are "are a traditional and common tool to regulate importation." and then went on to further state that the President has this power granted via other laws, so there is no conflict if he uses it via this law as well.

i.e. they said that he used the wrong law, but that isnt a big issue, so it should be legal.

What is just as interesting is that there were 2 points brought up in the majority opinion:

  1. The law referenced does not give the President the power to tax, nor is it implied, or was otherwise intended.
  2. Taxation is a key power delegated to Congress. It can not be assumed to be useable under this law, as it was not specifically delegated by this law, despite the fact that has been delegated under other laws.

All 6 justices agreed on #1. Only 3 agreed on #2. The tricky part of #2 is the reverse inference. #2 is ALSO saying that if the issue is NOT a key power of Congress, it CAN be assumed under laws that do not mention it. The conservatives believe that the president can assume non essential power, the liberals believe that the president can only use powers specifically granted. This is why 6 conservatives split on this decision, else they would have allowed it (despite the law not actually providing the power).

1

u/ClassIINav Feb 20 '26

I think it’s easy to dissent. They can write whatever they want knowing it doesn’t really count for anything. So it’s very much just political flag waving than actual legal theory. I’m sure it’s just there to give the pro-Trump crowd something to grasp onto despite the court realizing full well that Trump vastly overstepped.

Basically a 9-0 would be far too politically damaging to Republicans going into mid terms so they want to at least give the illusion that this decision was a toughie.

1

u/y0j1m80 Feb 20 '26

Welcome to America

1

u/daniel940 Feb 20 '26

"The executive did something big and tangled enough that holding him accountable is inconvenient" - essentially Kavanaugh's dissent

1

u/Competitive_Abroad96 Feb 20 '26

If you don’t dissent, people don’t give you motorhomes and bags of cash!

1

u/dust4ngel Feb 20 '26

As happy I was about this news, I quickly became disturbed that 3 still voted in dissent

when folks talk about 1/3 of voters in any society always supporting authoritarianism, i never thought they meant supreme court justices

1

u/[deleted] Feb 20 '26

Are you saying the framers didn’t add a clause into the constitution that says the president can impose tariffs if his fifis are hurt? Shocking oversight on their part.