Why the Supreme Court’s Tariff Decision May Be Short-Lived
This looks less like justice and more like strategy.
Log In
Email *
Password *
Remember Me
Forgot Your Password?
Log In
New to The Nation? Subscribe
Print subscriber? Activate your online access
Skip to content Skip to footer
Why the Supreme Court’s Tariff Decision May Be Short-Lived
Magazine
Newsletters
Subscribe
Log In
Search
Subscribe
Donate
Magazine
Latest
Archive
Podcasts
Newsletters
Sections
Politics
World
Economy
Culture
Books & the Arts
The Nation
About
Events
Contact Us
Advertise
Current Issue
Society
/ February 24, 2026
Why the Supreme Court’s Tariff Decision May Be Short-Lived
Within hours of losing the case, President Trump declared a new global tariff under a different statute.
Michele Goodwin and Gregory Shaffer
Share
Copy Link
Facebook
X (Twitter)
Bluesky Pocket
Email
Edit
Ad Policy
On Friday, the Supreme Court ruled against the Trump administration’s “liberation day” tariff scheme.(Win McNamee / Getty Images)
In a 6–3 decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts on Friday, the Supreme Court issued a decisive blow against the Trump administration’s “Liberation Day” tariff scheme. According to Roberts, Trump’s view that he could “impose tariffs on imports from any country, at any rate, for any amount of time” was not grounded in law or reality.
While on the surface it was a case about tariffs, the ruling underscores widespread concerns about the preservation of the rule of law in the United States with a president who shows contempt for checks and balances and scorns co-equal branches of government. Notably, after the ruling came down, the president quickly assembled a press conference, where he called the justices “fools and lapdogs for the RINOs and the radical left Democrats.”
Despite President Donald Trump’s worst inclinations, the decision ultimately affirmed the rule of law and restrained his unlawful reaches. Even Justice Neal Gorsuch took the administration to task for bypassing Congress, saying in his sharply worded concurring opinion that while “it can be tempting to bypass Congress when some pressing problem arises.… the deliberative nature of the legislative process was the whole point of its design. Through that process, the Nation can tap the combined wisdom of the people’s elected representatives, not just that of one faction or man.… deliberation tempers impulse.”
This decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, concerned whether the International Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA) authorized the president to impose unprecedented tariffs that selectively targeted some countries and not others. The plaintiffs, family-owned businesses that create and distribute educational products, were directly affected. They claimed that if allowed to stand, Trump’s tariffs would exponentially inflate their importation costs from under $2.5 million in 2024 to more than $100 million in 2025.
To understand the importance of this case and the court’s decision, consider that nowhere in the IEEPA does the statute use the word “tariff” or “tax.” Further, no president had used it to impose tariffs before in its 49-year history.
However, according to Trump, not only did the IEEPA grant him this broad authority, but Congress had delegated …
This looks less like justice and more like strategy.
Log In
Email *
Password *
Remember Me
Forgot Your Password?
Log In
New to The Nation? Subscribe
Print subscriber? Activate your online access
Skip to content Skip to footer
Why the Supreme Court’s Tariff Decision May Be Short-Lived
Magazine
Newsletters
Subscribe
Log In
Search
Subscribe
Donate
Magazine
Latest
Archive
Podcasts
Newsletters
Sections
Politics
World
Economy
Culture
Books & the Arts
The Nation
About
Events
Contact Us
Advertise
Current Issue
Society
/ February 24, 2026
Why the Supreme Court’s Tariff Decision May Be Short-Lived
Within hours of losing the case, President Trump declared a new global tariff under a different statute.
Michele Goodwin and Gregory Shaffer
Share
Copy Link
X (Twitter)
Bluesky Pocket
Edit
Ad Policy
On Friday, the Supreme Court ruled against the Trump administration’s “liberation day” tariff scheme.(Win McNamee / Getty Images)
In a 6–3 decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts on Friday, the Supreme Court issued a decisive blow against the Trump administration’s “Liberation Day” tariff scheme. According to Roberts, Trump’s view that he could “impose tariffs on imports from any country, at any rate, for any amount of time” was not grounded in law or reality.
While on the surface it was a case about tariffs, the ruling underscores widespread concerns about the preservation of the rule of law in the United States with a president who shows contempt for checks and balances and scorns co-equal branches of government. Notably, after the ruling came down, the president quickly assembled a press conference, where he called the justices “fools and lapdogs for the RINOs and the radical left Democrats.”
Despite President Donald Trump’s worst inclinations, the decision ultimately affirmed the rule of law and restrained his unlawful reaches. Even Justice Neal Gorsuch took the administration to task for bypassing Congress, saying in his sharply worded concurring opinion that while “it can be tempting to bypass Congress when some pressing problem arises.… the deliberative nature of the legislative process was the whole point of its design. Through that process, the Nation can tap the combined wisdom of the people’s elected representatives, not just that of one faction or man.… deliberation tempers impulse.”
This decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, concerned whether the International Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA) authorized the president to impose unprecedented tariffs that selectively targeted some countries and not others. The plaintiffs, family-owned businesses that create and distribute educational products, were directly affected. They claimed that if allowed to stand, Trump’s tariffs would exponentially inflate their importation costs from under $2.5 million in 2024 to more than $100 million in 2025.
To understand the importance of this case and the court’s decision, consider that nowhere in the IEEPA does the statute use the word “tariff” or “tax.” Further, no president had used it to impose tariffs before in its 49-year history.
However, according to Trump, not only did the IEEPA grant him this broad authority, but Congress had delegated …
Why the Supreme Court’s Tariff Decision May Be Short-Lived
This looks less like justice and more like strategy.
Log In
Email *
Password *
Remember Me
Forgot Your Password?
Log In
New to The Nation? Subscribe
Print subscriber? Activate your online access
Skip to content Skip to footer
Why the Supreme Court’s Tariff Decision May Be Short-Lived
Magazine
Newsletters
Subscribe
Log In
Search
Subscribe
Donate
Magazine
Latest
Archive
Podcasts
Newsletters
Sections
Politics
World
Economy
Culture
Books & the Arts
The Nation
About
Events
Contact Us
Advertise
Current Issue
Society
/ February 24, 2026
Why the Supreme Court’s Tariff Decision May Be Short-Lived
Within hours of losing the case, President Trump declared a new global tariff under a different statute.
Michele Goodwin and Gregory Shaffer
Share
Copy Link
Facebook
X (Twitter)
Bluesky Pocket
Email
Edit
Ad Policy
On Friday, the Supreme Court ruled against the Trump administration’s “liberation day” tariff scheme.(Win McNamee / Getty Images)
In a 6–3 decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts on Friday, the Supreme Court issued a decisive blow against the Trump administration’s “Liberation Day” tariff scheme. According to Roberts, Trump’s view that he could “impose tariffs on imports from any country, at any rate, for any amount of time” was not grounded in law or reality.
While on the surface it was a case about tariffs, the ruling underscores widespread concerns about the preservation of the rule of law in the United States with a president who shows contempt for checks and balances and scorns co-equal branches of government. Notably, after the ruling came down, the president quickly assembled a press conference, where he called the justices “fools and lapdogs for the RINOs and the radical left Democrats.”
Despite President Donald Trump’s worst inclinations, the decision ultimately affirmed the rule of law and restrained his unlawful reaches. Even Justice Neal Gorsuch took the administration to task for bypassing Congress, saying in his sharply worded concurring opinion that while “it can be tempting to bypass Congress when some pressing problem arises.… the deliberative nature of the legislative process was the whole point of its design. Through that process, the Nation can tap the combined wisdom of the people’s elected representatives, not just that of one faction or man.… deliberation tempers impulse.”
This decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, concerned whether the International Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA) authorized the president to impose unprecedented tariffs that selectively targeted some countries and not others. The plaintiffs, family-owned businesses that create and distribute educational products, were directly affected. They claimed that if allowed to stand, Trump’s tariffs would exponentially inflate their importation costs from under $2.5 million in 2024 to more than $100 million in 2025.
To understand the importance of this case and the court’s decision, consider that nowhere in the IEEPA does the statute use the word “tariff” or “tax.” Further, no president had used it to impose tariffs before in its 49-year history.
However, according to Trump, not only did the IEEPA grant him this broad authority, but Congress had delegated …
0 Comments
0 Shares
47 Views
0 Reviews
