WRONG. You're just sensationalizing and not telling the truth. Here is the truth. Tell your readers it.
Here’s a clear explanation of why the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today against the President’s tariff actions — and why it isn’t simply about whether the President can use tariffs at all, but what legal authority he used to do so:
@SCOTUSblog @Reuters @AP @ABCWorldNews @CBSEveningNews @NBCNews @cnnbrk @MSNOWNews @prwire @WSJmarkets @CBSPhiladelphia @FoxNews @NBCPhiladelphia @fox5dc @6abc
🔹 1. The Legal Question Before the Court
The case today wasn’t about whether the President ever can impose tariffs — it was about whether the specific law the President relied on actually gave him that power.
President Donald Trump had imposed broad tariffs citing the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 statute that lets a President deal with unusual and extraordinary foreign threats by limiting imports or exports once a national emergency is declared. (Wikipedia)
🔹 2. What the Supreme Court Held
In Learning Resources v. Trump, the Supreme Court (6-3) ruled that:
✅ IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose sweeping tariffs of the kind at issue. IEEPA authorizes export/import regulation during emergencies, but the Court found its language does not clearly authorize broad tariff powers. It doesn’t explicitly grant the President the authority to impose duties or taxes on imports, and no President prior to this had interpreted it that way. (Wikipedia)
Chief Justice Roberts wrote that the President’s use of IEEPA to impose tariffs failed under the “major questions doctrine” — a legal principle that says when an issue is of vast economic or political significance, Congress must clearly authorize it, not leave it to vague language in a statute. (Wikipedia)
Also, the Constitution assigns taxing power — including tariffs — to Congress, not to the executive branch. (NBC4 Washington)
So the ruling was twofold:
IEEPA’s text doesn’t clearly grant tariff-imposing power.
Allowing such broad authority without clear congressional language would violate constitutional separation of powers. (Wikipedia)
🔹 3. What This Isn’t Saying
⛔ It didn’t say the President can never impose tariffs. ⛔ It didn’t overturn all tariff powers in general.
What the Court rejected was the specific statutory authority (IEEPA) the President used in this case. Other statutes — like Section 232 (national security tariffs) or Section 301 (unfair trade practices) — still give the President tariff authority under narrower, well-defined congressional delegations. (Cato Institute)
🔹 4. Why This Matters Constitutionally
The ruling reaffirms core constitutional principles:
📌 Taxing and tariff powers belong to Congress. The Constitution vests that authority in the legislative branch. (NBC4 Washington)
📌 When an executive action has broad economic impact, Congress must speak clearly. That’s what the major questions doctrine enforces. (Wikipedia)
So the Court’s decision doesn’t just invalidate one policy — it reinforces that the President can’t rewrite tariff policy based on general emergency powers alone.
🔹 5. What Happens Next
Tariffs imposed under IEEPA are invalidated.
Businesses that paid those duties may seek refunds.
The administration could still pursue tariff policy using other statutory authorities, but with tighter limits. (AP News)
Summary in Plain Terms
✔ Tariffs are a form of tax, and the U.S. Constitution gives that power to Congress.
✔ For the President to impose tariffs, Congress must clearly authorize it.
✔ In this case, the Supreme Court said the law the President cited (IEEPA) did not clearly authorize broad tariffs, so the tariffs were unlawful.
✔ This isn’t a blanket ban on all presidential tariffs, just on using that particular law as the basis for them.