[Miami Rebel]

The article above is an opinion piece, and whether or not you agree with it, it clearly states the legal issues upon which the case will be decided.

It is not a clearcut case: the Heritage Foundation supports the government's position, the Federalist Society opposes it.

As of yesterday, Polymarket's betting line gives a slight edge to the government's case failing: you need bet $.48 to win a dollar if you think the tariffs will be upheld, whereas a decision striking the tariffs require $.53.

[central_va]

Get ready to lose Free Traitors.

[PIF]

If 47 loses in SCOTUS, P. Navarro said on Maria this AM that they have a Plan B - which they are keeping quiet until after SCOTUS rules.

[Dartoid]

Ok yeah written by Erwin Chemerinsky. LOL. You just know it is going to be an honest evaluation of the constitutional issues at play.

[Alberta's Child]

The stakes in the litigation are enormous. Tariffs are a crucial part of Trump’s agenda, with huge consequences in the United States and throughout the world.

I disagree with this point. The consequences will be limited, and these tariffs will be no more consequential than a Trump executive order renaming the “Gulf of Mexico” to the “Gulf of America.”

I wouldn’t be surprised if the Trump administration loses this case by a 9-0 margin in the Supreme Court.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

But the issue that the Supreme Court will decide is not whether the tariffs are desirable. Rather, the legal question is whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act authorizes the president to impose tariffs via executive order.

Way too many people on the right are ignoring the bolded distinction because they support tariffs.

I do think there is another potential question - even if SCOTUS were to find that the IEEPA authorizes these tariffs - though I don't think they will - they could then argue that it was such a complete delegation of legislative authority so as to be unconstitutional on that ground.

I think it goes down at least 6-3. But, the President can then ask Congress to pass those same tariffs, and perhaps it will.

[blitz128]

lol but the left loves taxes right🤔😎

[blitz128]

By that thinking are not regulations that increase costs also “taxes”🤔🤔🤔🤔
Something dims also love😂

[bert]

At root, the President did what the Congress could not. The President imposed a massive tax increase to end the deficit and collect funds to decrease the debt.

The Congress has tacitly agreed to the President’s help that created the legislatively impossible tax increase.

Perhaps the SCOTUS will decide while feeling the favorability of a tax increase breeze blowing around the Capitol

[spintreebob]

What is interesting is that absolutely no pro-tariff person has written a thorough, thoughtful article explaining and supporting the 2025 tariff actions.

In contrast, Tom Homan and others have written clean and thoughtful discussions on immigration. I tend to be more pro-immigration. But Homan’s words are respected. Much has been written about DOGE and cutting waste, fraud and abuse. Much has been written on other topics that is thoughtful. One can agree or disagree but either way respect the discussion.

But on tariffs the discussion is like cheerleaders at a pep rally.

[Vaduz]

All the noise about tariffs the fact about them countries stick it to the U.S. yet when we do it it’s somehow a bad deal.

Ignorant in motion.

[Flaming Conservative]

I’m all on board with the POTUS agenda, but man! The price of coffee has nearly doubled!

[NonValueAdded]

The shame of it is that Trump is using Tariffs as a potent Diplomacy tool and is getting great results. If the decision goes against him, Congress needs to keep this arrow in the diplomacy quiver.

[WASCWatch]

Tariffs are not taxes. If they were, why is the word tariffs used?

[Fledermaus]

So every country can tariff the crap out of our products or quota them.

Yet we can’t?

All BS.