The decision does not affect all of Trump's tariffs but invalidates those implemented using a 1977 law called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
What to know
The Supreme Court ruled that President Donald Trump exceeded his authority when imposing sweeping tariffs using a law reserved for a national emergency. The decision does not affect all of Trump’s tariffs, but invalidates those implemented using a 1977 law called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the ruling that the Trump administration had asserted "extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration and scope,” but had pointed to no statute that said the IEEPA could apply to tariffs.
The ruling blocks Trump's sweeping reciprocal tariffs and those the president imposed on Canada, China and Mexico in what he said was an effort to stop the flow of illegal drugs.
Democrats in Congress, as well as small business and retail groups, applauded the decision, saying the tariffs had impinged on lawmakers' constitutional authority and hurt U.S. consumers. Some major U.S. trading partners were more muted, however, saying they were reviewing the decision and emphasizing the need for stability in international trade.
GOP Rep. Don Bacon calls the ruling 'common sense'
Bacon, one of the six House Republicans who recently voted to undo U.S. tariffs on Canada, praised the Supreme Court's ruling.
“The Constitution’s checks and balances still works. Article One gives tariff authority to Congress. This was a common sense and straight forward ruling by the Supreme Court," he said in a statement.
Bacon, who's not running for re-election said he feels "vindicated" because he's been making the same argument over the last year.
"In the future, Congress should defend its authorities and not just rely on Supreme Court," he said. "Besides the Constitutional concerns I had on the Administration’s broad-based tariffs, I also do not think tariffs are smart economic policy. Broad-based tariffs are bad economics.”
Of course we all knew it was coming after this SCOTUS decision. It's tantrum time!
Trump says Gorsuch, Barrett decision to rule against tariffs ’embarrassment to their families’
President Trump said Supreme Court Justices Amy Coney Barret and Neil Gorsuch’s decision to rule against his administration’s tariff policies is “an embarrassment to their families.”
“I don’t want to say whether I regret nominating them. I think their decision was terrible,” Trump told reporters at the White House press briefing.
“I think it’s an embarrassment to their families,” he said.
Barret and Gorsuch, who were both nominated to the high court by Trump during his first administration, broke with the court’s conservatives to rule against the tariffs.
“They’re very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution. It’s my opinion that the court has been swayed by foreign interests and a political movement that is far smaller than people would ever think. It’s a small movement,” Trump said, referring to the majority of justices who struck his tariff policy down.
When asked by The Hill at the briefing whether the justices who ruled against the tariffs were still invited to the State of the Union, Trump said “barely.”
“They are barely invited. Three of them are invited. To be honest, I could care less if they come or not,” he said.
Trump heaped praise on conservative Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh for ruling in favor of the tariffs.
“I’d like to thank and congratulate Justices Alito and Kavanaugh for their strength and wisdom and love of our country,” he said, adding that he was “very proud” of the justices.
The president went on to say that Kavanaugh, who he nominated during his first administration, has seen his stock go up.
Meanwhile, Trump downplayed the possibility of Thomas and Alito retiring during his remarks.
“They’re great justices. That’s all I can say. And I hope they be around a long time. I hope they say healthy. They’re great people.”
If you wish to listen to a rambling bunch of nonsense on many subjects that have nothing to do with tariffs and trump patting himself on the back, here is the entire statement. It begins at the 27 minute 30 second mark.....................
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
"Trump’s response to the Supreme Court tariff ruling is not confusion. It is a carefully honed tactic: never admit defeat, never concede authority, never show weakness. He casts a legal rebuke as a victory, claiming the decision “made things more powerful and crystal clear,” when in fact it restricted his unilateral power. This is classic Trump — a method learned from Roy Cohn, the ruthless attorney who taught him that perception is power and that acknowledging failure is surrender.
In The Art of the Deal, Trump writes, “It’s always good to be honest with yourself. But it’s also important to present strength at all times. Weakness is the enemy. Never, ever give an inch.” Every setback, every court decision, every rebuke is reframed as preparation, clarification, or opportunity. He weaponizes denial, turning reality into narrative and narrative into leverage. The legal limit becomes a claimed affirmation of authority; failure is dressed as triumph.
The danger is systemic. By never admitting defeat, he trains his audience to accept rhetoric as reality, undermining trust in institutions designed to constrain executive power. Reality bends to performance, and the repetition of contradiction reshapes perception. The Supreme Court’s check on his authority is reframed in his narrative as a mandate to do more — a stark lesson in how the denial of failure can be used to consolidate power, even while contradicting law and reason."
Jay Madison
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
Just saw something on the News.... Not sure I heard it correctly. But did Costco absorb the extra tariff costs? I mean they would then be owned a ton of money right?
Like I said, not sure I have that right
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe." Damanshot
Firstly Trump didn't write the Art of the deal... He can't concentrate long enough to read an entire sheet of text, let alone write a book.
Secondly - what some might call a carefully honed tactic - others might say it's the reaction of a pathetic, coddled, petulant child who can never own mistakes or admit he's been bettered or schooled or corrected. Granted it has been consistent - but Trump acts and talks like a 7 year old in situations like this. "carefully honed" implies entirely too much kudos.
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
Just saw something on the News.... Not sure I heard it correctly. But did Costco absorb the extra tariff costs? I mean they would then be owned a ton of money right?
Like I said, not sure I have that right
It's possible though I doubt in total. That is going to be the legal quagmire that will last years. Maybe a decade or more. Company X had to pay more to impot French wine. How much extra money did they charge the consumer to help offset the tariff cost? We will probably never get to the bottom of that question.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.
So trump has abused his power and killed 2 American. He sucks at his job.
His job - as he sees it - is making Trump and the Trump family rich. That's the beginning, middle and end of it. With the way he has abused the office, he has succeeded in his goals.
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
Just saw something on the News.... Not sure I heard it correctly. But did Costco absorb the extra tariff costs? I mean they would then be owned a ton of money right?
Like I said, not sure I have that right
Could be, though I doubt they absorbed all the cost.
First, it needs to be established they continued to buy the same products or didn't switch to non-tariffed products.
Then it needs to be established that if they did raise prices. If so, then that amount would need to be subtracted from any recovery amount from the Treasury.
That would then raise the question of if individual retailers passed that amount along to consumers, would consumers be entitles to relief from said retailers? The Treasury would be required to make the retailers whole. Retailers would be required to make the consumer whole.
After summation, I agree with the ruling. That said, the remedy to this quagmire is going to be tied up in the courts a long time.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.
Just saw something on the News.... Not sure I heard it correctly. But did Costco absorb the extra tariff costs? I mean they would then be owned a ton of money right?
Like I said, not sure I have that right
It's possible though I doubt in total. That is going to be the legal quagmire that will last years. Maybe a decade or more. Company X had to pay more to impot French wine. How much extra money did they charge the consumer to help offset the tariff cost? We will probably never get to the bottom of that question.
Gonna be a mess to figure out... I think Kavanaugh said as much.
The number that Trump said his Tariffs have brought in so far (no I don't believe it) is $18 Trillion.
What part of that goes to the various companies that imported stuff and then absorbed Tariffs and how much goes to us from those that up charged us?
What a mess. My guess is that Trump and his team never thought it would come to this. I bet he never thought SCOTUS would go against him. They had no plan in the event that they didn't. Bessent said he doubted Americans will ever see it. So where does it go? Who gets the money now?
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe." Damanshot
Consumers and businesses paid nearly 90% of Trump tariffs in 2025, new analysis found
Almost all of President Trump's tariffs last year were passed on to U.S. consumers and businesses in the form of higher costs, according to an analysis from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
As the average U.S. tariff on imports jumped to 13% in 2025, up from less than 3%, "nearly 90% of the tariffs' economic burden fell on U.S. firms and consumers," the researchers wrote in a report last week.
On Wednesday, White House economic advisor Kevin Hassett slammed the research, saying its authors should be "disciplined."
"I mean, the paper is an embarrassment," the National Economic Council director said in an interview with CNBC's Squawk Box. "It's, I think, the worst paper I've ever seen in the history of the Federal Reserve system."
He added, "The people associated with this paper should presumably be disciplined, because what they've done is they've put out a conclusion which has created a lot of news that's highly partisan based on analysis that wouldn't be accepted in a first-semester econ class."
The New York Fed declined to comment on Hassett's remarks.
Who bears the burden of tariffs?
The Trump administration maintains that foreign companies and other exporters pay the lion's share of tariffs.
In a Jan. 30 Wall Street Journal op-ed defending his tariff agenda, for example, Mr. Trump said that "data shows that the burden, or 'incidence,' of the tariffs has fallen overwhelmingly on foreign producers and middlemen, including large corporations that are not from the U.S."
"In many cases, nations that are heavily dependent on exports have had no choice but to 'eat' the tariffs to avoid even worse losses from their excess capacity," he added.
The New York Fed's findings, which align with those of most mainstream economists, challenge that view. For the eight-month period from January through August, U.S. importers bore 94% of tariff costs. By November, exporters were shouldering slightly more of the burden, but U.S. importers remained on the hook for 86% of tariffs, according to the analysis.
"In sum, U.S. firms and consumers continue to bear the bulk of the economic burden of the high tariffs imposed in 2025," the report concluded.
Defending tariffs
The White House last week defended Mr. Trump's tariffs, touting the economic gains.
"America's average tariff rate has increased nearly sevenfold in the past year, yet inflation has cooled and corporate profits have increased," White House spokesperson Kush Desai said in a statement to CBS News. "The reality is that President Trump's economic agenda of tax cuts, deregulation, tariffs, and energy abundance [is] reducing costs and accelerating economic growth."
Recent data point to solid economic growth. The nation's gross domestic product expanded at a robust 4.3% annual pace in the third quarter, the strongest growth in two years.
The job market also remains healthy, with employers adding a stronger-than-expected 130,000 jobs in January, according to employment figures released last week.
Tariffs could be struck down
Economists predicted last year that elevated tariffs on imports were likely to drive up inflation. For the most part, those price hikes have failed to materialize.
In December, the Consumer Price Index rose at an annual rate of 2.7%, unchanged from November. The Department of Labor is scheduled to release the January CPI data on Friday.
The Treasury Department collected $287 billion in tariffs in 2025, up 192% from the previous year, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond.
Yet President Trump's scope to wield tariffs in future is uncertain, with the Supreme Court expected to rule soon on his authority to impose levies under a federal emergency powers law.
If those tariffs are struck down, the U.S. government could owe businesses as much as $168 billion in refunds, according to the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School.
So what is Kevin Hassett so mad about? Why should a study that states exactly what we all knew, American consumers and businesses are paying the tariffs, upset this administration so much that they think those associated with the the study should be disciplined? Maybe because it shows trump lied about bringing in "trillions of dollars" from the tariffs? Or is it that it blows up the lie that foreign companies are paying the tariffs?
At any rate the last time someone put out numbers they didn't like, job numbers, they were fired. I'm not sure they can fire someone at the fed or they would considering their actions in the past.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
Just saw something on the News.... Not sure I heard it correctly. But did Costco absorb the extra tariff costs? I mean they would then be owned a ton of money right?
Like I said, not sure I have that right
It's possible though I doubt in total. That is going to be the legal quagmire that will last years. Maybe a decade or more. Company X had to pay more to impot French wine. How much extra money did they charge the consumer to help offset the tariff cost? We will probably never get to the bottom of that question.
Gonna be a mess to figure out... I think Kavanaugh said as much.
The number that Trump said his Tariffs have brought in so far (no I don't believe it) is $18 Trillion.
What part of that goes to the various companies that imported stuff and then absorbed Tariffs and how much goes to us from those that up charged us?
What a mess. My guess is that Trump and his team never thought it would come to this. I bet he never thought SCOTUS would go against him. They had no plan in the event that they didn't. Bessent said he doubted Americans will ever see it. So where does it go? Who gets the money now?
Cato Institute said that the US collected about 260 billion in duties last year-and the amount that is affected by SCOTUS ruling is 60% of that number. That would be about 160 billion paid back.
and yes it if was mentioned by trump of 18 trillion-it is just another lie
What I find so amusing is it seems their biggest excuse is as to why the SCOTUS should not have deemed trump's "national security" import taxes illegal is because of this horrible mess it will create.
So rather than blame the man that created the mess with illegal tariffs they blame the SCOTUS for ruling correctly.
Then there's trump's excuse. "They didn't do what's right for America!"
As if the law doesn't matter as long as they do what he says and what he wants.
Someone needs to tell trump that the job of the SCOTUS is based on the law and not kissing his ass.
I'm shocked so many people can't grasp such a simple concept. Okay, so I'm not shocked.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
