US Supreme Court strikes DOWN Trump tarifs 6-3

[putnam6]

Sounds like we are getting Congress involved, which, depending on who owns them, renegotiation could be quick or take years.

Id imagine there is Chinese money pushing for negotiations. 

[/url]
Nick Sortor


@nicksortor


 MAJOR BREAKING: The US Supreme Court has just STRUCK DOWN President Trump’s tariff authority,

6-3

SCOTUS just WRECKED our country.

One of the biggest economic comebacks in world history just got thrown in the incinerator.

What a shame.

---

I could see Canada pushing for and getting renegotiations....

Hopefully we still deal with the EU one country at a time 

Townhall.com
@townhallcom
[url=https://x.com/townhallcom]
JONATHAN TURLEY: "There's a lot of runway still for the administration..."

"The administration has other tools in its toolbox. It CAN actually impose tariffs under other statutes!"

[Kenzo1]

Grab your popcorn .


Regarding making deals  one country at a time in EU ...i dont think it`s possible , under EU law.

[quintessentone]

Sounds like we are getting Congress involved, which, depending on who owns them, renegotiation could be quick or take years.

Id imagine there is Chinese money pushing for negotiations. 

[/url]
Nick Sortor


@nicksortor


 MAJOR BREAKING: The US Supreme Court has just STRUCK DOWN President Trump’s tariff authority,

6-3

SCOTUS just WRECKED our country.

One of the biggest economic comebacks in world history just got thrown in the incinerator.

What a shame.

---

I could see Canada pushing for and getting renegotiations....

Hopefully we still deal with the EU one country at a time 

Townhall.com
@townhallcom
[url=https://x.com/townhallcom]
JONATHAN TURLEY: "There's a lot of runway still for the administration..."

"The administration has other tools in its toolbox. It CAN actually impose tariffs under other statutes!"

Your country needs Chinese and other trade from certain countries, Trump is deluded if he thinks your country can be economically independent and isolationist.

[putnam6]

So my understanding is that this does not affect textile and apparel tariffs on imports from China, double-checking I forgot my goto on tariffs 

I was primarily concerned about the immediate effect on my industry; any changes will not hit us...


 SCOTUS only considered tariffs issued under the IEEPA & struck those down.

President Trump primarily relied on IEEPA for sanctions & emergency-based restrictions. Numerous major tariffs were imposed under standard trade statutes, not emergency powers, so many remain in effect. x.com/ckurtzopks81/s…

• The post responds to a query about specific tariffs affected by a Supreme Court ruling, explaining that only those imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) were invalidated, while others under standard trade laws persist.
  
• Issued on February 20, 2026, the SCOTUS decision limits President Trump's use of emergency powers for broad tariffs on imports, but spares measures like steel and aluminum duties enacted via Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act.
  
• This ruling narrows executive trade authority without dismantling Trump's overall protectionist framework, as non-emergency tariffs continue to influence U.S. imports from major partners like China and the EU.
  

Conversation

[/url]Election Wizard
@ElectionWiz

Subscribe


SCOTUS only considered tariffs issued under the IEEPA & struck those down.

President Trump primarily relied on IEEPA for sanctions & emergency-based restrictions. Numerous major tariffs were imposed under standard trade statutes, not emergency powers, so many remain in effect.
Quote




Chris Kurtz

@ckurtzopks81
·
1h
Replying to @ElectionWiz
Some tarries, which ones exactly? Who and how do they decide?

---

Grab your popcorn .


Regarding making deals  one country at a time in EU ...i dont think it`s possible , under EU law.

Yeah I do not know, now Im hearing not all new Trump tarrifs are subject to SCOTUS ruling 


 SCOTUS only considered tariffs issued under the IEEPA & struck those down.

President Trump primarily relied on IEEPA for sanctions & emergency-based restrictions. Numerous major tariffs were imposed under standard trade statutes, not emergency powers, so many remain in effect. x.com/ckurtzopks81/s…

• The post responds to a query about specific tariffs affected by a Supreme Court ruling, explaining that only those imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) were invalidated, while others under standard trade laws persist.
  
• Issued on February 20, 2026, the SCOTUS decision limits President Trump's use of emergency powers for broad tariffs on imports, but spares measures like steel and aluminum duties enacted via Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act.
  
• This ruling narrows executive trade authority without dismantling Trump's overall protectionist framework, as non-emergency tariffs continue to influence U.S. imports from major partners like China and the EU.
  

---

• This ruling narrows executive trade authority without dismantling Trump's overall protectionist framework, as non-emergency tariffs continue to influence U.S. imports from major partners like China and the EU.
  

---

FWIW






Tony Seruga


[url=https://x.com/TonySeruga]@TonySeruga

Understand, the Trump Administration was ready for this ruling and will be proactive in executing other arrows in their quiver. 

Unaffected Tariffs and Key Alternative Authorities

Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (national security tariffs):

These are intact and have been a cornerstone of Trump's approach. Examples include expanded duties on steel (up to 50%), aluminum, derivatives, automobiles/auto parts (25%), and ongoing or potential investigations into sectors like copper, lumber, critical minerals, pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, trucks, and aircraft.

The administration can reopen or expand these probes via the Department of Commerce, though they require an investigation (typically up to 270 days) and must tie to national security threats.

Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (unfair trade practices):

These also survive unscathed. Used extensively in Trump's first term against China (7.5%–100% on various goods), they allow tariffs after a U.S. Trade Representative investigation finds discriminatory or unreasonable foreign practices burdening U.S. commerce. New probes could target specific countries or products, though the process takes months.

Other potential tools:

Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974:

Allows up to 15% import surcharges (or quotas) for up to 150 days (extendable by Congress) to address large balance-of-payments deficits or similar issues—seen as a partial, temporary substitute for broad "reciprocal" tariffs.

Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930:

A lesser-known provision for additional duties in response to discriminatory foreign practices.

Section 201 (safeguard tariffs): For temporary relief from import surges injuring domestic industries (e.g., existing on solar cells/modules, set to expire soon).

Administration officials, including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and USTR Jamieson Greer, have publicly stated they plan to "start the next day" reimposing or replacing invalidated tariffs under these clearer authorities. Preparations were underway pre-ruling, with expectations to keep the overall tariff burden in place—albeit more targeted, procedurally constrained, and slower to deploy than the IEEPA blanket approach.

JONATHAN TURLEY: "There's a lot of runway still for the administration..."  "The administration has other tools in its toolbox. It CAN actually impose tariffs under other statutes!"

---

Even more options from AOC...

[sahgwa]

Sounds like we are getting Congress involved, which, depending on who owns them, renegotiation could be quick or take years.

Id imagine there is Chinese money pushing for negotiations. 

[/url]
Nick Sortor


@nicksortor


 MAJOR BREAKING: The US Supreme Court has just STRUCK DOWN President Trump’s tariff authority,

6-3

SCOTUS just WRECKED our country.

One of the biggest economic comebacks in world history just got thrown in the incinerator.

What a shame.

---

I could see Canada pushing for and getting renegotiations....

Hopefully we still deal with the EU one country at a time 

Townhall.com
@townhallcom
[url=https://x.com/townhallcom]
JONATHAN TURLEY: "There's a lot of runway still for the administration..."

"The administration has other tools in its toolbox. It CAN actually impose tariffs under other statutes!"

Most companies in Europe especially seem too stupid or uncaring to do their diligence with tariffs, so I have had to forego receiving some books and music from France and stuff because the vendors do not want to fill out the paperwork or do the basic simple arithmetic to pass on the tariff cost in the shipping . Its very frustrating. 
La Poste in FR said they ship to USA but these lazy ass companies are lying and say they don't lol.

So far no problem with books and stuff from Germany.
But if we can keep our advtantage but still streamline international trade I will be thankful.

[putnam6]

Most companies in Europe especially seem too stupid or uncaring to do their diligence with tariffs, so I have had to forego receiving some books and music from France and stuff because the vendors do not want to fill out the paperwork or do the basic simple arithmetic to pass on the tariff cost in the shipping . Its very frustrating. 
La Poste in FR said they ship to USA but these lazy ass companies are lying and say they don't lol.

So far no problem with books and stuff from Germany.
But if we can keep our advtantage but still streamline international trade I will be thankful.

Back in the day 2000s, we had a supplier who always bitched about the landed cost and his margins. 

After checking around, another supplier confirmed that the margins are super thin, so far, every tariff increase in our tiny sector has been eaten by the supplier in China. There is no room stateside to absorb additional costs, we would lose suppliers. 

As Ive said elsewhere, I have issues with Trump here and there, but economically we are still afloat, feels like the first time since COVID we have some stability.

[ANNEE]

Shouldn't "we" have started with Congress?

There is a specific structure in place -- for reasons.

Trump just ignores those procedure structures -- and dictates.

[The Crying Bunny]

I don't see why or how foreign countries can dictate our economic system?

[727Sky]

Now for the real story.

---

And now Trumps rebuttal 

[Minstrel]

The Supremes just told The Presidency - "We're stronger than you."

Anyone like watching arm-wrestling matches?

The UnElecteds -vs- The Elected

[EndtheMadnessNow]

Shouldn't "we" have started with Congress?

There is a specific structure in place -- for reasons.

Trump just ignores those procedure structures -- and dictates.

Yep. But the people guiding & advising Trump purposefully circumvented Congress because they are working to eradicate Congress or at least neuter. Trump is surrounded by the billionaire tech-bro class.

"Effective immediately, all National Security TARIFFS, Section 232 and existing Section 301 TARIFFS, remain in place, and in full force and effect. Today I will sign an Order to impose a 10% GLOBAL TARIFF, under Section 122, over and above our normal TARIFFS already being charged..." - President Donald J. Trump, 20 Feb 2026

[727Sky]

[quintessentone]

So then, USA has collected $155 Billion from those illegal tariffs, so can it be paid back?

There is more...

[putnam6]

The Supremes just told The Presidency - "We're stronger than you."

Anyone like watching arm-wrestling matches?

The UnElecteds -vs- The Elected

This happens from time to time



just shows our checks and balances are working... 

It will be interesting to see what actually happens to that 155 billion surplus...

These cases highlight how tariffs

—often intended for revenue, protectionism, or leverage—frequently escalated into major political flashpoints.

1. Tariff of 1828 ("Tariff of Abominations") and the Nullification Crisis (1832–1833, United States)
• High protective tariffs (up to 50% on imports) favored Northern manufacturers but devastated Southern agricultural exporters reliant on cheap foreign goods and British markets.
• South Carolina, led by Vice President John C. Calhoun, declared the tariffs unconstitutional and "null and void" via the Ordinance of Nullification, threatening secession.
• President Andrew Jackson responded with the Force Bill, authorizing military action, nearly leading to armed confrontation.
• Resolved via compromise (tariff reductions in 1833), but it foreshadowed sectional divides over states' rights, federal power, and slavery—setting precedents for later secessionist arguments.
2. Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act (1930, United States)
• Raised duties on over 20,000 imported goods amid the early Great Depression to protect U.S. industries.
• Triggered widespread international retaliation (e.g., from Canada, Europe), collapsing global trade by ~66% and worsening the Depression.
• Became a symbol of failed protectionism, straining diplomatic relations and contributing to economic nationalism that fed into pre-WWII tensions.
3. Corn Laws (1815–1846, United Kingdom)
• High tariffs on imported grain protected British landowners and farmers but raised food prices, causing hardship for urban workers and the poor.
• Sparked intense political battles between agricultural elites (protectionists) and industrial/urban interests (free traders).
• Led to riots, the formation of the Anti-Corn Law League, and eventual repeal in 1846 under Prime Minister Robert Peel—shifting Britain toward free trade but fracturing the Conservative Party.
4. Morrill Tariff (1861, United States)
• Sharply increased protective duties shortly before Southern secession, benefiting Northern industry.
• Southern states viewed it as further evidence of Northern economic dominance and favoritism.
• While not the primary cause of the Civil War (slavery was central), it intensified North-South economic grievances and was cited in some secession debates as an example of federal overreach.
5. Chicken War / Chicken Tax (1960s, United States vs. European Economic Community)
• U.S. imposed 25% tariffs on light trucks and other goods in retaliation for EEC restrictions on U.S. poultry exports.
• Escalated into a transatlantic trade dispute, affecting auto and agricultural sectors.
• Long-term legacy: The "Chicken Tax" on light trucks remains in place today, shaping the U.S. pickup truck market.
6. Banana Wars (1993–2009, United States vs. European Union)
• U.S. challenged EU preferences for Caribbean/African bananas over Latin American ones (favoring U.S. companies like Chiquita).
• Led to multiple WTO cases, retaliatory U.S. tariffs on European luxury goods (e.g., cashmere, cheese, handbags).
• Highlighted tensions over trade preferences, colonialism's legacy, and corporate influence in trade policy.
7. U.S.-Japan Trade Conflicts (1980s, including semiconductor and auto tariffs)
• U.S. imposed tariffs and quotas on Japanese cars, electronics, and semiconductors to counter perceived "unfair" practices.
• Sparked political friction, accusations of protectionism, and retaliatory threats.
• Contributed to broader U.S.-Japan economic rivalry during Japan's rise as an economic power.
These examples show tariffs often serve as proxies for deeper issues: regional economic rivalries, federal vs. state power, class interests, or geopolitical leverage. While some (like the Corn Laws repeal) led to liberalization, others (like Smoot-Hawley) amplified crises. In the U.S., tariffs repeatedly divided North vs. South or industry vs. agriculture, influencing party politics for over a century.

[gortex]

If the Supreme court is weighted toward Republicans 6/3 how is their decision against Trump wrong ? , I could see the upset if the Dems had the majority but if Trump's tariffs are illegal isn't it a Conservative dominated court's duty to rule that way , is the rule of law no longer valid in Trump's America ?

[Kenzo1]

The Supremes just told The Presidency - "We're stronger than you."

Anyone like watching arm-wrestling matches?

The UnElecteds -vs- The Elected

This happens from time to time



just shows our checks and balances are working... 

It will be interesting to see what actually happens to that 155 billion surplus...

These cases highlight how tariffs

—often intended for revenue, protectionism, or leverage—frequently escalated into major political flashpoints.

1. Tariff of 1828 ("Tariff of Abominations") and the Nullification Crisis (1832–1833, United States)
• High protective tariffs (up to 50% on imports) favored Northern manufacturers but devastated Southern agricultural exporters reliant on cheap foreign goods and British markets.
• South Carolina, led by Vice President John C. Calhoun, declared the tariffs unconstitutional and "null and void" via the Ordinance of Nullification, threatening secession.
• President Andrew Jackson responded with the Force Bill, authorizing military action, nearly leading to armed confrontation.
• Resolved via compromise (tariff reductions in 1833), but it foreshadowed sectional divides over states' rights, federal power, and slavery—setting precedents for later secessionist arguments.
2. Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act (1930, United States)
• Raised duties on over 20,000 imported goods amid the early Great Depression to protect U.S. industries.
• Triggered widespread international retaliation (e.g., from Canada, Europe), collapsing global trade by ~66% and worsening the Depression.
• Became a symbol of failed protectionism, straining diplomatic relations and contributing to economic nationalism that fed into pre-WWII tensions.
3. Corn Laws (1815–1846, United Kingdom)
• High tariffs on imported grain protected British landowners and farmers but raised food prices, causing hardship for urban workers and the poor.
• Sparked intense political battles between agricultural elites (protectionists) and industrial/urban interests (free traders).
• Led to riots, the formation of the Anti-Corn Law League, and eventual repeal in 1846 under Prime Minister Robert Peel—shifting Britain toward free trade but fracturing the Conservative Party.
4. Morrill Tariff (1861, United States)
• Sharply increased protective duties shortly before Southern secession, benefiting Northern industry.
• Southern states viewed it as further evidence of Northern economic dominance and favoritism.
• While not the primary cause of the Civil War (slavery was central), it intensified North-South economic grievances and was cited in some secession debates as an example of federal overreach.
5. Chicken War / Chicken Tax (1960s, United States vs. European Economic Community)
• U.S. imposed 25% tariffs on light trucks and other goods in retaliation for EEC restrictions on U.S. poultry exports.
• Escalated into a transatlantic trade dispute, affecting auto and agricultural sectors.
• Long-term legacy: The "Chicken Tax" on light trucks remains in place today, shaping the U.S. pickup truck market.
6. Banana Wars (1993–2009, United States vs. European Union)
• U.S. challenged EU preferences for Caribbean/African bananas over Latin American ones (favoring U.S. companies like Chiquita).
• Led to multiple WTO cases, retaliatory U.S. tariffs on European luxury goods (e.g., cashmere, cheese, handbags).
• Highlighted tensions over trade preferences, colonialism's legacy, and corporate influence in trade policy.
7. U.S.-Japan Trade Conflicts (1980s, including semiconductor and auto tariffs)
• U.S. imposed tariffs and quotas on Japanese cars, electronics, and semiconductors to counter perceived "unfair" practices.
• Sparked political friction, accusations of protectionism, and retaliatory threats.
• Contributed to broader U.S.-Japan economic rivalry during Japan's rise as an economic power.
These examples show tariffs often serve as proxies for deeper issues: regional economic rivalries, federal vs. state power, class interests, or geopolitical leverage. While some (like the Corn Laws repeal) led to liberalization, others (like Smoot-Hawley) amplified crises. In the U.S., tariffs repeatedly divided North vs. South or industry vs. agriculture, influencing party politics for over a century.

Trump`s tariffs are taxes .
U.S. consumers and businesses pay most of the costs from the Trump tariffs.

Americans, not other countries, paid Trump's tariffs in 2025


I cant fathom why people in America wont understand the trumps tariffs are a bad thing, to America. Other countries already moved on and long term business deals are made .

[The Crying Bunny]

I think our tariffs should match every nation we deal with.

It's only fair, amirite?

[Minstrel]

I think our tariffs should match every nation we deal with.

It's only fair, amirite?

I do believe that was the point 'Trump made from the start.
Level the playing field.

[putnam6]

Trump`s tariffs are taxes .
U.S. consumers and businesses pay most of the costs from the Trump tariffs.

Americans, not other countries, paid Trump's tariffs in 2025


I cant fathom why people in America wont understand the trumps tariffs are a bad thing, to America. Other countries already moved on and long term business deals are made .

I'm sorry to hear that the rest of the country/world is struggling with the tariffs' effects on thier economy 

In most of our territory (9 states),  thankfully, our retail partners are reporting brisk traffic. 

We are getting excellent reorder business for so early in the spring season. 


Our business was severely impacted even before COVID due to the riots, and the timing of COVID Along with various life challenges, almost led to the demise of our nearly 50-year-old small family business, yet we're still here. 

In fact, our business has seen significant growth over the past year, and we are finally getting a little breathing room.

 As I mentioned, there have been no price increases in our sector; our Chinese suppliers have absorbed every tariff increase in textiles and apparel, with no additional costs passed on to the American companies we represent. 

Our prices and cost of living remain stable. 

Gasoline prices in our area are quite low, and the savings from our fuel expenses—given that we drive a lot for work—more than offset any increase in our cost of living. 

For example, we saved $3,300 on gasoline alone in 2025 compared to 2024. 

It's important to note that the cost of living varies by region and state. 

For instance, gasoline in Los Angeles is almost $2.40 more than in my area, which is low-end suburbia and just 20 miles from a major city with a metro population of over 10 million.

Thats over 50 bucks every fill up compared to La La land, and we are 45 cents under the US average. And we are 20 cents less than where we were in February 2024

---

The esteemed Senator John Kennedy from Louisiana hits on the most salient point. 

Sen. John Kennedy on the SCOTUS tariff ruling:

"If you listened to the oral argument in this case, Stevie Wonder could see this decision coming. What's the end result? Here's the end result: for 13 months, President Trump assumed tariff authority...Now, the President didn't just sit around admiring that trade authority, that tariff authority, sucking on his teeth; he used it, and he used it to negotiate trade agreements. India, Japan, South Korea, Europe. Those countries are not going to rescind those trade agreements. Not in your or my natural lifetime. And he would not have been able to do those trade agreements had he not assumed this authority."

[Kenzo1]

I think our tariffs should match every nation we deal with.

It's only fair, amirite?

And have you noticed that US trade deficit has widened , it`s getting bigger with Trump .


Edit.  Not sure about US trade deficit numbers , it could be near same comparing 2024/2025 numbers . But i dont see tariffs helping with it yet.