{"id":51523,"date":"2026-02-20T11:08:28","date_gmt":"2026-02-20T16:08:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/stateofthenation.info\/?p=51523"},"modified":"2026-02-20T11:09:18","modified_gmt":"2026-02-20T16:09:18","slug":"supreme-court-strikes-down-trumps-terribly-treacherous-tariffs","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/stateofthenation.info\/?p=51523","title":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump’s Terribly Treacherous Tariffs<\/span><\/h1>"},"content":{"rendered":"

ZeroHedge.com<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court on Tuesday\u00a0struck down<\/a>\u00a0Trump’s tariffs.\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>In a 6-3 decision (170-pages), the court ruled that\u00a0Trump’s use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)<\/strong>\u00a0– which constitute about half of the tariffs we’ve seen under Trump – was not lawful. Kavanaugh, Thomas and Alito dissented.<\/p>\n

“IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs,” wrote the court.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/picture><\/a><\/p>\n

The ruling stems from a consolidated challenge brought by small businesses and multiple states,\u00a0<\/strong>who argued that the statute – originally intended to authorize sanctions and asset freezes during national emergencies – does not grant the executive branch the power to levy taxes on imports.<\/strong>\u00a0The Court reasoned that\u00a0the Constitution vests the authority to impose duties and tariffs with Congress alone<\/strong>, and found that IEEPA\u2019s authorization to \u201cregulate \u2026 importation\u201d\u00a0cannot be interpreted to include the distinct taxing power<\/strong>\u00a0required to enact broad-based tariffs. The ruling affirms lower-court decisions blocking the challenged measures, concluding that\u00a0the administration\u2019s emergency-based tariff framework exceeded the limits of the statute<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Trump invoked IEEPA to impose his ‘reciprocal’ tariffs on nearly every foreign trade partner to address what he called a national emergency over US trade deficits. He invoked it again to impose tariffs on\u00a0China, Canada and Mexico<\/strong>\u00a0over fentanyl trafficking into the United States.<\/p>\n

Friday’s decision rests on the notion that\u00a0tariffs are not merely a tool for regulating trade, but a form of taxation<\/strong>\u00a0that the Constitution reserves to Congress. Citing Article I, Section 8, the majority stressed that the power to impose tariffs is \u201cvery clear[ly] \u2026 a branch of the taxing power,\u201d and that the Framers gave Congress \u201calone \u2026 access to the pockets of the people.\u201d\u00a0The administration had argued<\/strong>\u00a0that IEEPA\u2019s grant of authority to \u201cregulate \u2026 importation\u201d permitted the President to impose tariffs in response to declared national emergencies.\u00a0<\/strong>The Court rejected that interpretation, noting that while \u201ctaxes may accomplish regulatory ends, it does not follow that the power to regulate includes the power to tax as a means of regulation.\u201d<\/p>\n

The majority also pointed to the statute\u2019s text, emphasizing that IEEPA authorizes the President to \u201cinvestigate, block \u2026 regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit\u201d certain transactions –\u00a0yet makes no mention of tariffs or duties<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

\u201cHad Congress intended to convey the distinct and extraordinary power to impose tariffs<\/strong>,\u201d the opinion states, \u201cit would have done so expressly<\/strong>, as it consistently has in other tariff statutes.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Court further highlighted a\u00a0lack of historical precedent\u00a0<\/strong>\u00a0– noting that that\u00a0in the nearly 50 years since IEEPA\u2019s enactment, \u201cno President has invoked the statute to impose any tariffs<\/strong>,\u201d and that combined with the sweeping economic impact of the measures at issue – it was a \u201ctelling indication\u201d that the asserted authority falls outside the President\u2019s legitimate reach.<\/p>\n