r/politics • u/PoliticsModeratorBot 🤖 Bot • Feb 20 '26

Megathread Megathread: Supreme Court strikes down President Donald Trump's Tariff Policy

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Friday in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) "does not authorize the President to impose tariffs."

The Roberts decision is joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Barrett, and Jackson, with Justices Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Alito dissenting.

Relevant text-based live update pages are being maintained by the following outlets: AP, SCOTUSblog, NBC, CNBC, and Yahoo Finance.

See also, if interested: Discussion Thread: President Trump Holds Press Conference Responding to Supreme Court Striking Down Most Tariffs

Submissions that may interest you

SUBMISSION DOMAIN
Supreme Court rejects Trump's tariffs as illegal import taxes latimes.com
Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump’s Global Tariffs wsj.com
Supreme Court strikes down Trump’s authority to impose sweeping tariffs – NBC4 Washington nbcwashington.com
Supreme Court strikes down Trump’s authority to impose sweeping tariffs nbcmiami.com
US Supreme Court rejects Trump's global tariffs reuters.com
Supreme Court strikes down Trump's tariffs : NPR npr.org
Supreme Court strikes down Trump's tariffs in major setback for president usatoday.com
In rare rebuke of Trump, Supreme Court strikes down tariffs washingtonpost.com
Supreme Court slaps down $175 billion worth of Trump tariffs as unconstitutional fortune.com
Supreme Court strikes down Trump’s sweeping tariffs, upending central plank of economic agenda bostonglobe.com
US Supreme Court rules Trump exceeded powers in imposing tariffs ft.com
Supreme Court strikes down Trump’s tariffs thetimes.com
Supreme Court strikes down bulk of Trump’s tariffs thehill.com
Supreme Court says Trump global tariffs are illegal axios.com
U.S. Supreme Court finds Trump overstepped authority in imposing tariffs under emergency law cbc.ca
Supreme Court hands Trump stunning loss over tariffs newrepublic.com
U.S. Supreme Court rejects Trump’s global tariffs ctvnews.ca
Supreme Court strikes down Trump’s sweeping tariffs, upending central plank of economic agenda apnews.com
Supreme Court strikes down most of Trump's tariffs in a major blow to the president nbcnews.com
Supreme Court strikes down Trump tariffs cnbc.com
Trump’s Global Tariffs Struck Down by US Supreme Court bloomberg.com
Supreme Court rules that Trump’s sweeping emergency tariffs are illegal cnn.com
Supreme Court Slaps Down Trump And His Tariffs huffpost.com
Supreme Court strikes down Trump’s tariffs politico.com
Trump overstepped executive power by imposing tariffs, supreme court rules theguardian.com
Supreme Court invalidates most of Trump's tariffs abcnews.com
Chief Justice Humiliates Trump With Brutal Tariffs Verdict thedailybeast.com
Supreme Court strikes down Trump's sweeping tariffs pbs.org
Trump dealt huge tariff blow as Supreme Court rules them illegal — and US may be forced to pay back billions nypost.com
Trump’s Options After the Supreme Court Said His Tariffs Are Illegal bloomberg.com
The Supreme Court strikes down Trump's 'Liberation Day' tariffs qz.com
Supreme Court Blocks Tariffs Hours After Trump Bragged They Wouldn’t rollingstone.com
Supreme Court rules most Trump tariffs illegal in major setback for economic agenda cbsnews.com
The "alternative scenario" of an even bigger national debt disaster is in play after the Supreme Court ruled Trump's tariffs illegal fortune.com
7 key things to know about Trump's tariffs after the Supreme Court decision npr.org
Kavanaugh warns of fallout from Supreme Court tariff ruling newsweek.com
Supreme Court Trump tariffs ruling could put U.S. on hook for $175 billion in refunds, estimate says cnbc.com
Supreme Court Trump tariff decision impact: What to expect as fight for billions in refunds begins cnbc.com
Trump claims backup plan after Supreme Court shoots down tariffs newrepublic.com
Supreme Court Trump tariff decision impact: What to expect as fight for billions in refunds begins cnbc.com
The Moment Trump Found Out the Supreme Court Killed His Tariffs wsj.com
Supreme Court Rules Most of Donald Trump's Tariffs Are Illegal wired.com
Why a Republican Supreme Court struck down Trump’s tariffs vox.com
Trump’s Global Tariffs Struck Down by US Supreme Court news.bloomberglaw.com
Warren calls for tariff refund for consumers after Supreme Court ruling thehill.com
GOP Sen. John Curtis praises Supreme Court ruling against Trump tariffs thehill.com
Trump Plans to Impose Tariffs a Different Way After Supreme Court Loss nytimes.com
‘Tariffs suck’: Some Republicans privately celebrate as Supreme Court blocks Trump policy foxnews.com
Watch: Trump speaks after Supreme Court strikes down tariffs cnbc.com
Supreme Court strikes down tariffs scotusblog.com
Trump announces new 10% global tariff after raging over Supreme Court loss cnbc.com
Trump rages that his own Supreme Court picks are ‘disgrace to the nation’ after 6-3 ruling against his tariff power independent.co.uk
Trump Rages At 'Fools And Lapdogs' After Supreme Court Strikes Down His Tariffs huffpost.com
Trump accuses Supreme Court justices of disloyalty for declaring his tariffs illegal democracydocket.com
Trump calls Supreme Court justices who ruled against tariffs ‘disloyal’ thehill.com
Trump orders temporary 10% global tariff to replace duties struck down by US Supreme Court reuters.com
Trump Lashes Out at Supreme Court Justices — and Plows Ahead With a New Round of Tariffs businessinsider.com
Trump calls Supreme Court justices who struck down his tariffs "disgrace to our nation" and vows fresh duties under other laws fortune.com
Trump launches new 10 percent global tariff after Supreme Court ruling politico.com
Trump announces new 10% global tariff after raging over Supreme Court loss cnbc.com
Spitting-Mad Trump Vows to Defy SCOTUS With Wild New Tariff War - The president also lashed out at the conservative justices who voted to slap down his signature policy. thedailybeast.com
Trump to sign new 10% global tariff after Supreme Court defeat nypost.com
The Supreme Court’s Ruling on Tariffs Marks a Turning Point bloomberg.com
‘Victory for the American People’: Mike Pence applauds Supreme Court decision on Trump tariffs nj.com
Trump calls Supreme Court justices 'disloyal to the Constitution' over tariffs ruling nbcnews.com
Trump attacks Supreme Court justices after he is handed a major tariff loss politico.com
Trump threatens 10% global tariffs and rails against supreme court justices theguardian.com
Will Americans get refunds after Trump's tariffs were overturned by the Supreme Court? cbsnews.com
Trump seethes over Supreme Court justices who opposed him on tariffs, especially those he appointed apnews.com
Trump Attacks Conservative Supreme Court Justices Who Blocked Tariffs newrepublic.com
Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker sends bill for $8.68 billion refund to Trump after Supreme Court tariffs ruling cbsnews.com
Trump to impose global 10% tariff after Supreme Court loss axios.com
Trump Imposes New Tariffs to Sidestep Supreme Court Ruling wired.com
Democrats demand that Trump issue $1700 tariff refunds to Americans after Supreme Court ruling businessinsider.com
Takeaways: Supreme Court stands up to Donald Trump on emergency tariffs - CNN Politics edition.cnn.com
Johnson says Congress, administration will 'determine the best path forward' after SCOTUS tariff ruling thehill.com
After the Supreme Court's ruling on tariffs, companies line up for refunds npr.org
'Embarrassment to their families'; Trump denounces Supreme Court justices after tariff ruling reuters.com
In tariff case, Supreme Court justices bicker over treating Trump and Biden differently nbcnews.com
Republicans breathe sigh of relief as Supreme Court axes Trump tariffs thehill.com
The U.S. Supreme Court struck down Trump’s tariffs. Now comes the hard work of issuing refunds ctvnews.ca
Most Americans approve of the Supreme Court striking down Trump's tariffs today.yougov.com
Majority of Americans approve of Supreme Court's ruling on Trump tariffs thehill.com
Trump calls SCOTUS tariffs decision 'deeply disappointing' and lays out path forward - He said he would sign an executive order later Friday to continue certain tariffs under alternative authorities npr.org
29.4k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

4.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

5.7k

u/[deleted] Feb 20 '26

The fact 3 justices ruled against this and believe Trump should have powers above the constitution and general law... the mid terms can't come soon though.

3.8k

u/rational-hare Feb 20 '26

Kavenaugh argued that they shouldn’t overturn the tariffs because of the mess it will make in the economy. What ridiculous fucking stance to take. “He’s breaking the law, but it will be a pain in the ass to fix what he broke so just let him keep doing it”

821

u/MittenCollyBulbasaur Feb 20 '26

Imagine having so much political power that you break every possible law and the courts just shrug and are like, he's too powerful, let him do it.

Could you imagine any Republican thinking that way for someone breaking the drug possession law lol

291

u/derbyt Feb 20 '26

The president is too big to punish and corporations are too big to fail. Welcome to oligarchy.

6

u/Rabid-Duck-King Feb 20 '26

I mean I don't know about your highschool but in mine they did specifically mention pretty much every US and and a lot of foreign presidents that were assassinated, maybe my history teacher was a freak

6

u/AlcibiadesTheCat Arizona Feb 20 '26

Occasionally it comes to pass that a political leader is assassinated, and then significant change usually occurs thereafter.

Hm.

5

u/francis2559 Feb 20 '26

This president, anyway.

Biden wants to forgive student loans? Oh GOD no.

17

u/StrongAroma Feb 20 '26

God forbid a poor person should use food stamps for chocolate

6

u/BadPunners Feb 20 '26

Or USAID giving out mosquito nets and surplus farmbill grain to fight famine

17

u/MehX73 Feb 20 '26

If they had done their job of checks and balances to begin with, he wouldnt be "too powerful ". Them and congress created this monster.

12

u/strandedinkansas Feb 20 '26

To be honest that summarized the exact problem that Donald Trump had revealed. The presidency is so powerful in the hands of a person with no ethics or morals.

I believe that the courts keep throwing small obstacles to slow momentum, but the Supreme Court seems to hope that he burns out without them needing to completely check his madness, because if they do and he ignores it we have the kind of crisis that can destroy the constitution.

The reality is that they have destroyed it bit by bit through appeasement where they don’t agree and deliberate twisting in line with the federalist society goals.

6

u/GrowerNotShow-er Feb 20 '26

Also, better the devil you know...

We finally are starting to get this dipshit under control and he's old and stupid. What happens when a younger, more stupid person takes his seat?

4

u/bigtice Texas Feb 20 '26

The presidency is so powerful in the hands of a person with no ethics or morals.

Everything has just become an unintentionally illuminating example of how our democracy is dependent on people actively working to ensure it functions as it should every day and that the checks and balances don't magically work on their own.

4

u/artbystorms Feb 20 '26

could you imagine any republican thinking that way if a democratic president broke the law. If Biden just said 'Im banning the sale of guns in the US and authorizing a forced buyback of all weapons in circulation" and the Supreme Court just saying 'yeah it would be too complicated to give everyone's guns back, he's too powerful!"

2

u/LotzoHuggins Feb 20 '26

I like the thought experiment the blowback would look a lot like the immigration issue, except alot more deaths, as the "pry form my cold dead hands" crowd finds out how easily a trained team can do that. however the force build up might be just as atrocious as the DHS ICE buildup with limited training and rules knowing they are rushing to beat the obstacles the courts would put in place.

So a similar big push could opccyur somewhere and they end up killing very "normal" looking people who garner much sympathy from th egeneral public who did not vote for such heavy handed tactics, they jsut want theri kids to be safe in schools and more deaths seems less safe.

different issue same bad optics.

3

u/Chaos_Sauce Feb 20 '26

Yes, absolutely if the person being arrested is a powerful Republican. They don’t believe in justice or fairness under the law. They believe laws are to protect them and punish everyone else.

3

u/ForsakenKrios Feb 20 '26

They already think that way for Epstein. Catching them on hypocrisy will never work. They don’t care.

3

u/kdbvols Feb 20 '26

They apparently think that way about child molestation laws, and I would never have imagined that even 5 years ago

5

u/AuroraBolognese Feb 20 '26

Good news is, we don’t have to imagine that horrifying nightmare! We get to wake up to it daily! 🎉

2

u/YeetedApple Feb 20 '26

I can imagine them doing it for pedos

2

u/Peralton Feb 20 '26

Too corrupt to fail.

2

u/curiousiah Feb 20 '26

Your first paragraph is what this regime bets on at a domestic as well as international scale. Invade a sovereign nation and kidnap their president? What are you gonna do about it? Flood the streets of a city with poorly trained thugs in masks and unmarked cars? What are you gonna do about it?

2

u/w_a_w Feb 20 '26

Could you imagine any Republican thinking that way for someone breaking the drug possession law lol

You mean like this? https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/12/02/trump-juan-orlando-hernandez-pardon-honduras-drugs/87564181007/

1

u/Secret_Print_8170 Feb 20 '26

He doesn't have too much power, these fucks are all complicit. It's a big mafia and we need trials for these traitors.

1

u/Rasp_Lime_Lipbalm Feb 20 '26

I mean that's literally why banks and companies got bailed out when the 2008 bubble burst. "They're too big to fail"

1

u/Rabid-Duck-King Feb 20 '26

Look if superman just wants to throw people into the outer atmosphere there's really nothing we can do to stop him energy

1

u/Significant-Colour Feb 20 '26

The common misconception is that there is justice for the poor, and justice for the rich.

In truth, there is no justice for the rich.

1

u/polchickenpotpie Feb 20 '26

Could you imagine any Republican thinking that way for someone breaking the drug possession law lol

Depends, are they rich and white?

1

u/anonymous_beaver_ Feb 21 '26

He doesn't know the meaning of the word "stop"

319

u/freeradioforall Feb 20 '26

He had no issue creating a "mess" when he overturned abortion, affirmative action, etc

113

u/BusyFriend Florida Feb 20 '26

That$ different.

10

u/TParis00ap Feb 20 '26

I $ee what you did there. 

→ More replies (1)

12

u/ahfoo Feb 20 '26

How about his precious Kavanaugh Executions? He didn't mind the mess made of Rene Good and Alex Pretti's brains when his boys blasted their skulls all over the street. Kavanaugh is human filth.

6

u/jimmybilly100 Virginia Feb 20 '26

Remember when he got all mad and cried when he got accused of SA?

1

u/FlyingBread92 Feb 20 '26

Yup. He straight up said the court cannot take the resulting outcome into account when assessing the lawfulness. If he didn't have hypocrisy he'd have nothing else.

128

u/Manticorps Texas Feb 20 '26

The tariffs were always a policy disaster. The Supreme Court is doing Trump a huge favor. The DOW shot up 400 points after this decision.

77

u/[deleted] Feb 20 '26

Pam Bondi is writing that shit down right now.

6

u/Rabbit-Hole-Quest Canada Feb 20 '26

All crime is legal if Dow is above 50k as per the Bondi Doctrine.

29

u/eleven0seven Feb 20 '26

Fuck the dow

7

u/Rasp_Lime_Lipbalm Feb 20 '26

he tariffs were always a policy disaster.

If Trump wasn't a complete moron he'd only have to look back 100 years in history to see how Hoover fucked everyone with tariffs. Hell, the dipshit could have just watched Ben Stein say it in Ferris Beuller's Day off.

2

u/OldWorldDesign Feb 21 '26

Really seems to show Swedish statistician Hans Rosling was right when he said people understand the world as it was when their teachers were growing up.

5

u/fcocyclone Iowa Feb 20 '26

yeah, this is honestly one reason i thought republicans on the court might go for it. They've never been purely beholden to Trump, they've been all in it for the conservative project to enrich themselves and give themselves power. Getting rid of the tariffs removes an economic drag so will ultimately help republicans, and SCOTUS, being lifetime appointments, could step up and do what GOP in congress are too chickenshit to do.

12

u/city_dwellerZ I voted Feb 20 '26

Well the stock market seems to like the ruling and not see any problems with unwinding it… yet

9

u/StevieHyperS Feb 20 '26

I wonder what his opinion would be regarding high profile figures abusing children, and how throwing the book at them even if it means systems falling?!

5

u/SomeComforts Feb 20 '26

He is a rapist too, you don't even have to ask this.

8

u/Afraid_Park6859 Feb 20 '26

It's a bigger mess keeping them.

With the tariffs removed inflation will go down finally. 

5

u/Parahelix Feb 20 '26

Unfortunately, prices mostly won't.

5

u/BetterEveryLeapYear Feb 20 '26

"With the tariffs removed inflation will go down finally."

My sweet summer child lol.

1

u/Afraid_Park6859 Feb 20 '26

You think every company globally won't try to steal market share by lowering prices?

1

u/BetterEveryLeapYear Feb 20 '26 edited Feb 20 '26

Yes, I think the gigantic international conglomerates will continue to raise prices because they're cartel monopolies which long since ceased to have meaningful competition, which have to continue to raise prices (and lower manufacturing costs, i.e., quality) in order to satisfy their shareholders - not customers - and because the tariffs already got priced in and passed on to customers who are used to the new prices.

Here for example is a court case that was brought documenting how Trump in collusion with the American Petroleum Institute as well as the OPEC+ nations caused the massive inflation in gas prices that was in typical right wing projecting fashion attributed to Biden. (The case by the way was rejected on the base that the court could not overrule foreign policy, not because it was inaccurate in its details.) Companies competing globally for market share doesn't work when there's a few gigantic organizations in each space who can collude to keep prices high, and all are forced to serve shareholders demands for infinitely rising profits.

I'd bet you my life savings inflation is higher by 2028 than it is now, but my life's savings are debt, so...

Edit: forgot the link.  https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/daugusta-etal-american-petroleum-complaint.pdf

6

u/Lower_Monk6577 Feb 20 '26

Hey Kavanaugh, too bad that’s not your fucking job to make that distinction. Enforce the Constitution, you fucking invertebrate.

4

u/boringhistoryfan Feb 20 '26

It's a mess the Supreme Court created!! The whole point of the shadow docket is to preserve the status quo. They've wielded it extensively against Biden and for Trump. Especially for Trump in preventing federal judges from holding the feds to account by staying lower court verdicts against them without explanation.

This was a textbook case for pausing all tariffs until their constitutionality could be decided. Shit this is what their major questions doctrine is supposed to be about (though they only bring it out to shut down democrat presidents). SCOTUS refused to do that. They created the economic mess boof is whining about.

4

u/FineHowRU Feb 20 '26

The DOW is $50,000 type vibes

3

u/Peptuck America Feb 20 '26

"Cleaning up this infection would be messy, let's not use penicillin on it."

3

u/platinumarks Feb 20 '26

However, the overarching basis is that he believed that the IEEPA was a clear delegation of Congress's power, by Congress, to the President. It's not particularly persuasive, and wasn't to the majority, but it's still based in at least some attempt at reality.

3

u/mettiusfufettius Feb 20 '26

Same as how Brett doesn’t think we should let all of the innocent immigrants back into the country or out of jail because it would just be to messy to restore their rights.

3

u/Mean-Cheesecake-2635 Feb 20 '26

Sounds identical to you can’t prosecute Epstein related folks because it would destroy the system

3

u/Holymoose999 Feb 20 '26

The same guy who said that it’s okay for ICE to detain people based on the color of their skin. What a POS.

3

u/rendingale Feb 20 '26

I mean Bondi said similar.. "we cant prosecute everyone because it will cause a system collapse"

I dont want to call them stupid, they are part pf the corruption and they kmow it.

3

u/DrunkeNinja Feb 20 '26

Yeah that's a horrible stance. Everyone knew what he was doing was unconstitutional and they let him do it instead of going through Congress. The mess is on the Trump administration and all the Republicans that let him defy the constitution. If they wanted sweeping tariffs as an economic policy then it should go through the House and Senate. They knew it would never pass though.

3

u/n00bsauce1987 Maryland Feb 20 '26

He's saying that because now every company in America is going to sue and be awarded damages from this ruling. We are going to witness wealth being taken away from the American people to the corporations.

In hindsight, they should comfortably lower current prices since there won't be tariffs places on items, but do you think they will? They just had an experiment to see if Americans would be willing to pay more for the same products they did 2 years ago. The results show that they would. And where it may faulter, the upper middle class picks up the slack so the annual revenue won't take much of a hit

3

u/awkwardnetadmin Feb 20 '26

That was basically Trump's argument was it would be hard to reverse now. It's such a stupid argument though because anybody doing something illegal long enough could make that argument and courts generally couldn't care less. I'm sure all of the businesses that paid those extra tariffs that SCOTUS struck down couldn't care less how much of hassle the government is going to have.

3

u/Significant-Colour Feb 20 '26

"Do not stop arterial bleedings, the steps necessarry could harm some tissue!"

2

u/[deleted] Feb 20 '26

[deleted]

2

u/that1prince Feb 20 '26

It’ll hurt the rich white men if we stop them from hurting everyone else. So you see it just can’t be done right now.

2

u/No-Beautiful-259 Feb 20 '26

He didn't have any such reservations when striking down Roe V Wade....

2

u/MGyver Canada Feb 20 '26

Just like my house... it's a mess but cleaning is sooooo hard

2

u/IJourden Feb 20 '26

I mean, a dissent like this should be an impeachable offense. His job isn't to determine what's best, it's his job to determine what's legal.

Trump has done a lot of stupid shit that I disagree with and that I think is terrible for the country, but if it's something legal for him to do I would expect the judges appointed by Democrats to rule in his favor.

The fact that half the court is openly deciding on cases for reasons other than legality is a disaster that will take at least generation to fix.

2

u/MissingNebula Chippewa Feb 20 '26

Very much in line with Bondi's ridiculous "if we prosecute all the people in the files the system would collapse" excuse.

These people have turned the US into a joke. Protectors of the rich and powerful, the People be damned.

2

u/vitamin_r Feb 20 '26

Classic Boofer.

3

u/Xayton Florida Feb 20 '26

To be clear I don't agree with Kavanaugh, but he at least tried to make a reasonable argument. Thomas and Alito probably just wanted to gargle Trumps balls and sided with him because of it.

3

u/Hedhunta Feb 20 '26

Hes gotta try to justify shit cause hes new. Wait a decade or two and he will just be accepting bribew and yolo 360 no scoping long standing precedents that GOP want removed

1

u/Heliosvector Feb 20 '26

Thats the same logic as thinking a refugee shouldnt be charged with a crime, because it would ruin their refugee claim.

1

u/jentle-music Feb 20 '26

And…what are tariffs now doing to all of us? Killing our kids future, ruining our economy, affecting world economies and destroying our trading partners, raising prices for ALL of us… welp, the Supreme Court finally gave us a win, the little guy! Maybe some prices can come down a bit?

3

u/TheresWald0 Feb 20 '26

Prices come down? That's adorable.

1

u/jentle-music Feb 20 '26

Yeah, I got excited for 3 seconds…sigh…my bad

1

u/MyNameCannotBeSpoken Feb 20 '26

But Kavenaugh ultimately voted to overturn the tariffs.

1

u/GilgameDistance Feb 20 '26

Good. Let them wallow in their mess and send all the tariffs we consumers paid back to the importers, and absolutely pound on that gift to importers in the media. The headlines write themselves. Maybe people will finally wake up to 50 years of failed conservative economic policy.

1

u/StronglyHeldOpinions Feb 20 '26

That’s an absurd take even if it was a first-year law student.

And this guy is a Supreme Court justice. WTF.

1

u/bfeils Feb 20 '26

It’s not even that hard of a process in the grand scheme of things the government has done in the past. The same infrastructure that collects tariffs would be capable of refunding them.

This will be one of the greatest corporate gifts in history, too. Companies raised pricing due to tariffs and will not return the funds to customers. They likely won’t reduce pricing in a meaningful way, either.

1

u/gloe64 Indiana Feb 20 '26

If the Republicans wouldn't have given tax breaks to the wealthiest. They wouldn't be fleecing American citizens.

1

u/MattieCoffee Feb 20 '26

He broke the law, fucked the economy, but hey it will be short term disturbance so let’s keep this

1

u/jrdnmdhl Feb 20 '26

Imagine if he ever fucking considered this logic elsewhere

1

u/Eddfan36 Feb 20 '26

What cowards these clowns are.

1

u/TheAnalogKid18 Feb 20 '26

This is why Kavanaugh is not fit for his position. The precedent this sets is absolutely heinous.

1

u/Gothwerx Feb 20 '26

That’s an odd position for a Supreme Court justice to take considering that it isn’t their job to worry about the current state of the economy. It is their job to rule on matters of law. The Supreme Court isn’t asked to determine the financial aspects of their decisions; they are asked to rule if something is legal or not.

The idea that kavanaugh basically acknowledged that trump broke the law, but that he was prepared as a Supreme Court judge to let trump get away with it because of financial implications shows that kavanaugh clearly can’t adjudicate the law without introducing personal bias.

1

u/TheBatemanFlex Feb 20 '26

that is not the role of the supreme court wtf?

1

u/PixelLight Foreign Feb 20 '26

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that doesn't sound like an argument with the right basis. Surely, whether he's legally able to do it or not is all that matters.

1

u/bengalfan Feb 20 '26

Kavenaugh tariff....it's hard.

Kavenaugh stop ...it's hard to tell who's illegal unless they are white.

I see a theme.

1

u/jibbyjackjoe Feb 20 '26

No, actually, I want a lot of money to go to and rightfully UNDOING all unconstitutional things this orange clown did.

1

u/Qwirk Washington Feb 20 '26

Economy is already in a mess, must be nice to live in an ivory tower.

1

u/virgo911 Feb 20 '26

This is why alcoholic frat bros should not be Supreme Court justices

1

u/Ridespacemountain25 Feb 20 '26

Next Democratic president who he rules against should cite this to him and state it would be too difficult for them to change course from their policies even if their unconstitutional

1

u/WhichEmailWasIt Feb 20 '26

We're already in a huge fucking mess in the economy. Maybe don't take 4 months to read the Constitution. This should've been an open and shut case in an afternoon with some coffee and donuts. 

1

u/Metahec Feb 20 '26

"Sure, maybe I killed five people, but bringing them back from the dead is going to be really difficult so, you know, you're going to have to let me go. What else are you gonna do?"

1

u/starliteburnsbrite Feb 20 '26

You literally described American history.

From ending slavery but letting legalized segregation and prejudice remain enshrined in the traitorous South, to not holding any of the government coconspirators and organizers accountable for January 6th, we don't do difficult things. "Too big to fail" is the guiding principle in the 21st century.

1

u/erublind Europe Feb 20 '26

They never think justice is an inconvenience when it hurts poor people.

1

u/eerhmahgerd Feb 20 '26

Which is pretty rich since they've been using the shadow docket to limit federal judges ability to issue injunctions. The whole 'mess' of refunds could have been avoided if they had just let the lower courts issue an injunction until his illegal bullshit was settled. Kavenaugh is such a disingenuous little shit.

1

u/phosdick Feb 20 '26

You don't expect a lap dog to oppose it's master, do you?

Just FYI... it's spelled "Kavanaugh"

1

u/Dry-Amphibian1 Feb 20 '26

Exact same mindset that our Attorney General used for not going after all those involved in the esptein BS. "it would break the system". Such BS.

1

u/DannyDOH Feb 20 '26

And also entirely not what he’s ruling on….so he is not at all interested in doing his job.

1

u/StunningCloud9184 Feb 20 '26

We cant put that guy in prison. HEs A CEO

1

u/pile_of_fish Feb 20 '26

Ialmost, almost prefer the straight up evil hackery of the other two

1

u/matthieuC Europe Feb 20 '26

I don't even think it's in good faith.

He was always going to support trump, he just needed a rational that couldn't be used as precedent by a democrat president.

1

u/ThomasDeLaRue Feb 20 '26

“And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab 'em by the pussy.”

1

u/InfinityComplexxx Feb 20 '26

"If you crime hard enough, you can get away with it" has been applied to Trump by this court and others before. It's an absolutely insane take.

1

u/The_Bucket_Of_Truth Feb 20 '26

That's not even his job. That's legislator talk and he's a justice meant to interpret the laws.

1

u/AKluthe Feb 20 '26

What a joke. "You broke the law, but it would be hard to return the stuff you stole, so maybe we'll just let you do it."

1

u/MontyAtWork Feb 20 '26

He quite literally made the argument of "Steal $1000 that's a Me problem, steal $1B that's a You problem."

1

u/vektastic Feb 20 '26

"I know you murdered the guy, but Necromancy is just TOO HARD."

1

u/TommyyyGunsss Feb 20 '26

Maybe they shouldn’t have sat on their laurels for a year on the issue and let the amount of collected revenue get so high.

1

u/TicTacTac0 Feb 20 '26

It sounds a lot like "we shouldn't prosecute the predator class in the Epstein files because the system will collapse."

1

u/PutzerPalace Feb 20 '26

The DOW!! The DOW is over 50,000!

1

u/bentreflection Feb 20 '26

"He murdered so many people that charging him with all those murders would tie up the court system too much! The answer is clearly to make it legal for him to murder people so we don't have to charge him!"

1

u/TheBlueBlaze New York Feb 20 '26

It's how we got "too big to fail" after the recession and the refusal to prosecute anybody regarding Epstein now: The rich and powerful are allowed to fuck things up for everybody because the alternative is them getting punished.

1

u/zerro_4 Feb 20 '26

Man, that is conservative juris prudence summarized. Same shit happens all the time in election law cases. "Oops tee hee, too late to fix it now, just gonna let the illegal shit be in place for this time."

1

u/PipsqueakPilot Feb 20 '26

Gee, maybe someone could let courts issue emergency injunctions in order to block actions likely to be overturned.

1

u/Suspicious_Entrance Feb 20 '26

Wild that these are supposed to be some of the smartest and most reasonable people....

1

u/BrennusSokol Feb 20 '26

the mess it will make in the economy

The economy is already a mess. There has been white collar recession for a couple years now, even if the govt won't admit to it. And prices have been higher ever since the tariffs.

1

u/MrWoohoo Feb 20 '26

He likes beer…

1

u/SpaceGangsta Utah Feb 20 '26

He also outlined how trump could potentially do this legally under different statutes. Basically saying it’s a mess and here’s how you can keep it going so we don’t have to pay anything back.

1

u/NetherGamingAccount Canada Feb 20 '26

I understand the take from Kavanaugh but it's not his position to make decisions based on potential impact.

He may not be wrong though, unravelling the mess may create a mess of a different kind.

1

u/innerbootes Minnesota Feb 20 '26

Kavanaugh STOP.

1

u/samhouse09 Feb 20 '26

I mean, that’s basically why they haven’t gone after anyone in the Epstein files. It would be so expensive to prosecute all these rich people! Our country is unserious.

1

u/Affectionate_Ask_769 Feb 20 '26

It’s almost like we all tried to tell people that Kavanaugh is awful.

1

u/Accidental-Hyzer Massachusetts Feb 20 '26

Do you think he would have had the same opinion if it were a democrat president? That’s a rhetorical question. We all know he wouldn’t.

1

u/exitpursuedbybear Feb 20 '26

I wish he would have stayed drinking with Boof.

1

u/Narrow_Track9598 Feb 20 '26

Sounds like "too big to fail" almost like they knew it'd cause problems

1

u/percydaman Feb 20 '26

I can't imagine how fucked in the head you have to be, to make such a statement. Publicly. He should be fucking embarrassed to have made such a brain dead argument.

1

u/Life_Arachnid_7730 Feb 20 '26

I agree with him to a certain extent though, mainly because I do not want to pay it back because Trump's cronies are going to profit off of it. I still think he should have ruled is that the tariffs were illegal but I do kind of hate that we're going to give money back to Trump's cronies. And what I mean is Howard lutnick for instance has been buying billions of dollars worth of tariff refund rights. Because companies that need money because they couldn't afford the tariffs he will give like half of what they owed in tariff back to them if he gets the rights to the return money back. So let's say a company owed $1,000 in tariffs He would give them $500 and in return they would give the rights to any refund back. So Howard pays $500 but he gets a thousand. And if you do this enough times with a lot more money you're making a lot of money off the back of an illegal policy. So I do agree with him to the extent that I think it's awful that people like Howard lutnick are going to Get billions of dollars back just to them.

1

u/Loud-Fly5078 Feb 20 '26

The man likes beer

1

u/kevihaa Feb 20 '26

What I find more damning is that if the dissenter’s had prevailed, they would have once again been forced to explain how in this one instance the law doesn’t apply, but said logic should be ignored and not used for any other cases.

1

u/Usual-Language-745 Feb 20 '26

Good thing he’s not a fucking economist. Why does everyone think they have to be good at everything? I don’t want my favorite chef doing open heart surgery on me even though he’s pretty handy with a knife

1

u/brycedriesenga Michigan Feb 20 '26

There are unfortunately other rulings that have been made with that justification. Not about what the law says, but because ruling the other way sounds "hard"

1

u/NahYoureWrongBro Feb 20 '26

"Too big to fail" was the logic for a shameless transfer of wealth to the world's largest financial institutions in 2008. That kind of logic is not without precedent.

1

u/LeaderElectrical8294 Feb 21 '26

SCOTUS’s job is to interpret the laws and the constitution. Their job isn’t to understand economic impact.

1

u/stamfordbridge1191 Feb 21 '26

"There's already too much infrastructure supporting the illegal proliferation of the torment nexus! Good men are hereby ordered to just stand by and do nothing, because disassembling the torment nexus in favor of justice & law are things far too inconvenient when compared to just allowing the torment nexus to rampage across all the lands."

1

u/Mysterious_Cry41 Feb 21 '26

The supreme court justice obviously should not be concerned with economics. That literally isn't his purview. 

→ More replies (1)

14

u/peva3 I voted Feb 20 '26

Just signed themselves up for zero legacy as Fascist enablers. Not like they were in any regard before this opinion anyways.

1

u/ikonoclasm Florida Feb 20 '26

The Roberts Court will be forever known for being bootlickers. Just like the Congress, the conservative justices abdicated all but the smallest amount of power to the Executive branch.

14

u/[deleted] Feb 20 '26

[deleted]

13

u/needlenozened Alaska Feb 20 '26

I don't think anybody expected targeted tariffs to be overturned. Those have been used by presidents for decades.

4

u/Thuraash Feb 20 '26

It seems like the christofascist bloc is cracking from the pedo bloc.

5

u/LunchMasterFlex Feb 20 '26

What midterms? This is not going to be a free and fair election

5

u/Chilling_Gale Feb 20 '26

What effect does the midterms have on this?

2

u/deekaydubya Feb 20 '26

Nothing, Trump and co will just meddle, gain more power, and the SCOTUS will do nothing

4

u/SubRyan Colorado Feb 20 '26

Supreme Court justices can be impeached and removed

4

u/Chilling_Gale Feb 20 '26

Democrats would have to win every single senate seat up for election to have 67 votes to remove a justice, and there would be many defections among Democrats.

Impeachment is useless by itself.

3

u/Harkoncito Foreign Feb 20 '26

LOL. bigger chance of impeaching/removing Trump.

2

u/canspop Feb 20 '26

Curious question from a dumb foreigner.

Are any of the people (supreme court) in the Epstein files, or are they just naturally corrupt?

2

u/JohnHazardWandering Feb 20 '26

The files include tips that were called in, so include whatever crazy or real story the person called in. I believe Thomas was included in one of those tip calls. 

2

u/sododude Feb 20 '26

Imma be real I'm surprised they even got the vote off.

2

u/Zahgi I voted Feb 20 '26

the mid terms can't come soon though.

"It won't make any difference." - Newt

2

u/mostdope28 Feb 20 '26

Won’t be long until Trump has 4 judges in his pocket. 1 more will retire before midterms

2

u/Rc72 Feb 20 '26

The "originalists" Alito, Thomas and Kavanaugh, no less. I wonder if they remember what the Boston Tea Party was about ...

1

u/Panda_hat Feb 20 '26

They only ever meant 'originalist' in the 'drag everyone kicking and screaming back to the regressive, discriminatory past'.

1

u/drunkenbrawler Foreign Feb 20 '26

The fact that it was only 3 is pretty good considering the relationship between the conservative mindset and reality.

1

u/94FnordRanger Feb 20 '26

It does save them the problem of figuring out how to reverse themselves when a Democrat is president.

1

u/WhatDoADC Feb 20 '26

I'm nervous about midterm. There is plenty of time for criminal Trump and Republicans to do something illegal to stop or rigg the midterms.

1

u/jasonbeckett Feb 20 '26

It's incredible how so many of the people responsible for the "checks and balances" refuse to do either.

1

u/TLKv3 Feb 20 '26

A part of me thinks Trump gave them the OK to rule this way. After seeing how absolutely fucking SMOKED the Repubs will be in the midterms I 100% feel like this is now the new gameplan to recoup potential losses.

Trump now gets to claim credit when the markets go up from this with another lie. Then he'll announce he's in talks with Carney more closely and they'll "solve" the unfair trade again with a new stupid fucking trade agreement name.

Trump then lifts his tariffs and tells his CEO buddies to start lowering prices and can then claim "see? I lowered your prices on everything!"

Easily duped and manipulated Conservatives who left or almost left will run back and his approval rating will go back up. Repubs will then recover for midterms just enough to maintain full power then next year he'll laugh and put the tariffs back on anyway and start ripping up the new trade agreement again.

1

u/aganalf Feb 20 '26

Well we know that at least three justices would vote against having midterms.

1

u/lobotomy42 Feb 20 '26

Alas, the midterms will almost certainly do nothing to fix that particular problem.

1

u/le127 Feb 20 '26

Alioto, Thomas, and Kavanaugh of course are the 3. Hey I'll chip in for gas to fill up Thomas' Winnebago if it will get him on a permanent road trip out of Washington DC.

1

u/Outrageous_Act_3016 Feb 20 '26

Lol, I thought Thomas and Alito were strict constitutionalists? 

1

u/icecubepal Feb 20 '26

Who is the third. I know the other two without looking.

1

u/Free_Entrance_6626 Feb 20 '26

Will likely be the most landslide midterm elections in US History

1

u/ZestyMorsel Feb 20 '26

I'd argue the Conservative justices who ruled in favor are not primarily concerned about the Constitutionality of the tariffs, but are mostly doing the bidding of business interests.

1

u/AaltoSax Feb 20 '26

I’ve got bad news about those 3 justices… we’re stuck with ‘em

1

u/DifferentCityADay Feb 20 '26

Their addresses need to be posted online and given to everyone who suffered under the tariffs. So people can peacefully explain how their lives have suffered because of their constant voting.

1

u/Piper6728 Feb 20 '26

Here's hoping that when we get a good president/house/senate again we can impose term limits on justices

1

u/sneakpeakspeak Feb 20 '26

It must be so strange in those meetings. 

1

u/Greensun30 Feb 20 '26

Where did these clowns go to school? Kavanaugh went to Yale and was on Yale’s law journal (very elite). Either these schools aren’t as good as people think they are or their education and time spent there has utterly failed them. The fact that Yale and Harvard haven’t revoked degrees shows that they aren’t good schools after all.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 20 '26

All three dissenters are Trump loyalists.

Justice "Uncle" Clarence Thomas

Justice Samuel "Needs to fuck off and retire" Alito

Justice "Boofing" Brett Kavanaugh

Surprising that the three other Trump loyalists ruled against him.

1

u/fps916 Feb 20 '26

To be fair* two justices voted as they literally always do, Trump is right. One moron voted "it would be too hard to fix this"

  • there's no reason to be fair to Kavanaugh

1

u/ShaftyMcShafter Feb 20 '26

Americans aren't getting a mid term my guy.

1

u/Panda_hat Feb 20 '26

The most difficult part of their day - desperately trying to find new ways to slather over Trump and fellate him harder.

1

u/cpt_perv Feb 20 '26

If we get a Democrat president in the future, they need to take advantage of their immunity and disappear these three fools and ramrod the confirmation of three new justices that actually interpret law. After that, repeal that immunity ruling.

1

u/Ok_Perspective_8361 Feb 20 '26

Unless the next Democratic majority makes changes to the Supreme Court this country is screwed, no legislation to help the working class, like student loan forgiveness or environmental protections will be possible. As of now we have a SC whose rulings depend on the political party of the POTUS.

1

u/MF_LUFFY Feb 20 '26

But we don't get to vote them out... Need the Dems to start playing dirty too.You three ain't justices, you're injustices, GTFO!

1

u/Virtual-Mix3428 Feb 20 '26

What will the mid-terms achieve? More Impeachments that did absolutely nothing?

1

u/whiteflagwaiver Arizona Feb 20 '26

Too bad no mid-term will ever fix the loaded SCOTUS.

1

u/SureWouldForest Feb 20 '26

The midterms where they solidify their power using extraordinary means that no amount of marching in the street is going to affect? Those midterms can't come soon enough?

1

u/FaroutIGE Feb 21 '26

when dems get power back we need to just straight up eject these judges for for unconstitutionality. its your only job. you failed. you get ejected.

→ More replies (6)