›

SCOTUS tea leaves

ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate, Heaven Host
edited February 20 in Purgatory
I see that SCOTUS has ruled against Trump's use of emergency powers to impose widespread tariffs:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/feb/20/trump-supreme-court-tariffs-ruling
I'm inclined to think that anything that restrains the regime is a step in the right direction, but I'm more interested in analysis of what can be inferred from a 6-3 decision as compared with other issues on which the court has split differently.

My outsider's take is that it looks like the swing votes on SCOTUS are those who have conservative views that aren't wholly MAGA-aligned - they're willing to grant Trump a great deal of leeway in executive action but still recognise some separation of powers.

Corrected typo in thread title - la vie en rouge, Purgatory host

Comments

  • DoublethinkDoublethink Admin, 8th Day Host
    edited February 20
    If they have ruled he is immune from prosecution for illegal actions in his official role, and they have now ruled one of those actions illegal - does the latter ruling make any practical difference ?
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    For all the talk of how MAGA represents some perversion of supposedly moderate old-school Republicanism, as far as I can determine, it's been Thomas and Alito, appointed by GHW Bush and GW Bush respectively, who have been the most consistent in siding with Trump, hell or high water. Not sure about Alito, but I think in CT's case, he just votes whatever way he thinks will benefit the Republicans.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Basically, the ruling invalidates the tariffs imposed under the IEEPA especially the those applied against Canada, China, and other countries. First thing my wife said when she heard the news was coffee prices should come down.

    The court decision also clarifies limits on presidential power emphasizing that emergency statutes cannot be used to remake global trade policy.

    But it did not determine who should be repaid the moneys collected through the tariffs. Some argue companies should be reimbursed, but I would argue ultimately it should be consumers get the rebates.

    Stock Markets have reacted modestly to the news. I think the question is how to deal with potential refunds. Thousands of firms have filed refund claims now.
  • CaissaCaissa Shipmate
    edited February 20
    Trump has suggested that the companies paying the tariffs will have to litigate to get the money back.
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Hell Host
    He's also suggested that the SC is being unpatriotic and disloyal.
  • CaissaCaissa Shipmate
    Will no one rid me of this turbulent (priest) president?
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited February 20
    chrisstiles wrote: »
    He's also suggested that the SC is being unpatriotic and disloyal.

    And that Gorsuch and Barrett have "embarrassed their families" by joining the majority.
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    Doublethink wrote: »
    If they have ruled he is immune from prosecution for illegal actions in his official role, and they have now ruled one of those actions illegal - does the latter ruling make any practical difference ?

    Yes, it makes an enormous difference. His being personally immune from criminal prosecution does not make toothless the court's ruling that he has exceeded his authority because when they've said the president doesn't have the authority to do impose tariffs using IEEPA, he can't just do it anyway; the whole apparatus involved in executing his order stops working. In essence they didn't say that what he did was illegal so much as they said he is incapable of doing what he did.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Doublethink wrote: »
    If they have ruled he is immune from prosecution for illegal actions in his official role, and they have now ruled one of those actions illegal - does the latter ruling make any practical difference ?
    @Ruth has it right. What SCOTUS said a few years ago is that the president cannot be criminally prosecuted for violations of criminal laws if those violations occurred in the course of exercise of executive authority. There are two different meanings of “illegal” at work in your post—violation or criminal law on one hand and contrary to the relevant laws concerning the power to impose tariffs, and therefore unenforceable, on the other.


  • DoublethinkDoublethink Admin, 8th Day Host
    That’s good to hear.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    His extended outburst in the press conference today is yet a further illustration of the truth. You disagree with him at your peril.

    He also talked about ways of “getting round” legal rulings. It seems clear that he will try to find ways of getting round even SCOTUS rulings if he wants to.

    I wonder what these publicly expressed opinions will do to SCOTUS dynamics? Given Trump’s steadily waning popular support and some signs of a developing backbone in Congress, it may be that separation of powers is going to re-emerge from the shadows.

    I’m not getting too hopeful just yet, but the next few months will tell us whether this is a blip or part of a trend.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Trump can still use Section 301 of the trade act of 1974 which allows tariffs in response to unfair trade practices. This a slower procedure that requires an investigation.

    There is also Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 which would allow tariffs on strategic based metals such as steel and aluminum. It is more limited in scope.

    There are some antidumping laws as well.

    He might also try to get Congress to pass a new statute explicitly granting tariff power. This is highly unlikely.

    What he cannot do is impose tariffs instantly by declaring an economic emergency. That door is closed.

    Nor can he use the IEEPA as a bargaining chip to threaten countries with immediate duties.

    To the question of him imposing a 10% global tariff, I do not see how he can do that. It would have to go through congress.

    This tiger has lost its teeth.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Arethosemyfeet wrote: »
    My outsider's take is that it looks like the swing votes on SCOTUS are those who have conservative views that aren't wholly MAGA-aligned - they're willing to grant Trump a great deal of leeway in executive action but still recognise some separation of powers.

    A more cynical take would be that the current Supreme Court majority is happy to back the consolidation of power in the executive branch and that this impulse is only checked by their deference to big business interests. Saying the president can't unilaterally impose tariffs is of a piece with their carve-out of an exception for the Federal Reserve in allowing Trump to fire federal officials without cause, even when statute says otherwise.
    Finally, respondents Gwynne Wilcox and Cathy Harris contend that arguments in this case necessarily implicate the constitutionality of for-cause removal protections for members of the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors or other members of the Federal Open Market Committee. See Response of Wilcox in Opposition to App. for Stay 2−3, 27−28; Response of Harris in Opposition to App. for Stay 3, 5−6, 16−17, 36, 40. We disagree. The Federal Reserve is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States. See Seila Law, 591 U. S., at 222, n. 8

    In short, Trump can do whatever he wants, unless it's going to affect the portfolios of people in the same general socio-economic class as Supreme Court Justices. Kagan had a lot of fun mocking what she called the "bespoke Federal Reserve exception" in her dissent.
Sign In or Register to comment.