SCotUS: Trump Tariff Ruling

Amy Howe's Supreme Court strikes down tariffs, SCOTUSblog (Feb. 20, 2026, 11:00 AM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/02/supreme-court-strikes-down-tariffs/ was among the first to report on the SCotUS ruling on Trump tariffs, widely viewed as unconstitutional by those with a fundamental understanding US tariff history. In their ruling on presidential power, the Supreme Court struck down disuniform tariffs President Trump wrongfully imposed via executive orders. The 6-3 vote asserted these tariffs exceed powers abdicated to the president by Congress under a 1977 law [also unconstitutional along with FDR's Most Favored Nation abomination, etc.] providing executive authority to regulate commerce during national emergencies created by foreign threats.

The Court didn't rule on federal refunds to importers, estimated to have paid more than $200 billion in tariffs last year. Continued wrongful collection of these disuniform, unauthorized tariffs was allowed until the Court's decision. These Justices display as much ignorance on economics (i.e., elasticity of Supply and Demand determines who bears a tax) as big government, modern Biden/Trump Democrats... yes, I know Comrade Trump currently 'dons' the Red soviet jersey these past years. This is what happens when rigged, uncompetitive elections keep installing command and control candidates advanced by over-degreed, under-educated politburo members like Stephen Miller, Peter Navarro, Larry Summers, et al types destroying our nation.

The unconstitutional law addressed is the International Emergency Economic Powers Act [IEEPA] wrongfully authorizing the president “to deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States, if the president declares a national emergency with respect to such threat.” Howe further cited a separate provision of the law when there is a national emergency, the president may “regulate … importation or exportation” of “property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest.” Sadly, most do not understand this (like war powers) is authorized to Congress, not the executive. To correctly reallocate these powers, the Constitution must be amended to give war powers, disuniform MFN authority, etc. to the executive, just as imposing the 435 limit in 1929 making Congress increasingly more oligarchic/less representative without amendment.

SCotUS agreed with plaintiff filings IEEPA did not give Trump the power to impose the tariffs... sadly not striking down this 1977 ‘Moscow on the Potomac’ abomination. Some column readers may recall past writings on Prof. Taussig's economic history on the 20% 'benchmark rate' on tariffs before markets (if allowed) react to them excessive. Historical lessons of Jackson, Lincoln, McKinley, Wilson, FDR, DJT, et al are rarely taught (esp. to our modern, soviet trained economists) so a command and control economy result picking winners and losers - over a uniform 'user fee' as tariffs were designed -- is beyond their understanding. The Court failed, led by Chief Justice Roberts, to stop overreaching with the "O'Romney Care" tax destroying healthcare in our nation, perhaps this ruling signals a ‘sea change’ to undo similarly poor SCotUS decisions on the power to tax.

Justice Kavanaugh penned the dissenting opinion with babble Justices Thomas and Alito joined, asserting Trump had the authority under IEEPA to impose the tariffs because they “are a traditional and common tool to regulate importation,” in Amy Howe's report; also citing Kavanaugh with, “I firmly disagree with the Court’s holding today, the decision might not substantially constrain a President’s ability to order tariffs going forward … because numerous other federal statutes authorize the President to impose tariffs and might justify most (if not all) of the tariffs at issue in this case.” As one of the biggest command and control, big government conservatives on the Court, Kavanaugh continues to display poor understanding the commerce clause is designed to keep trade regular between States and other nations' trade with our coalition States; now a forced coalition of once sovereign states. The party which put us on our soviet path militarily imposed excessive, disuniform tariffs when political muscle failed.

I ask folks to (re)read [https://www.alabamagazette.com/story/2018/02/01/opinion/toward-a-more-rational-constitutional-immigration-policy/1275.html] on moving forward toward the rational, common sense vision put forth in our Constitution on tariffs/immigration, well steeped in the Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 design of uniformity. Along with tariffs, immigration and naturalisation are indeed among the few things the federal government is authorised to address. I suspect many would be amazed at how much the ‘GENERAL welfare’ would improve if the federal government only did those few enumerated powers really well instead of unconstitutional programs and policies designed to benefit the SPECIFIC welfare of special interests. My definition of an extremist politician is clear and simple… bureaucrats, executives, judges, lawmakers, et al adhere to what they’re authorised to address and hold to their oath, OR they exceed their authority and are extremist. To understand the more generic consternation about immigration, one must make the connection to the labour issue… distortions of competitive forces in labour markets are nothing new.

In closing, the loudest complainers about trade and immigration are those most quiet on offering alternatives. Sound proposals require understanding of how our federal government was designed to operate and be advanced by those who have the courage to put forth simple, rational, Constitutionally correct policies instead of more politically correct, command and control outcomes designed to further empower the federal government and redistribute wealth to corporate and social welfare queens. Undoubtedly some swoon at letting anyone, from any country of origin be eligible for a work visa and/or citizenship provided they pay the uniform tariff and are well vetted. It is easy to be welcoming to cheap goods and imported labour where cost of trade, infrastructure, enforcement, etc. are not incorporated in the exchange, but this doesn't escape the reality of these costs.

THE VIEWS OF SUBMITTED EDITORIALS MAY NOT BE THE EXPRESS VIEWS OF THE ALABAMA GAZETTE.