Trump Warns of Economic Disaster If Supreme Court Rules Against Tariffs

Epoch Times ^ | 11/11/2025 | Kimberly Hayek

[E. Pluribus Unum]

The globalists want to destroy America.

This is their last opportunity.

[ViLaLuz]

Chaos and division is needed to overpower us.

[Raycpa]

I can see that the $2,000 refund is a way for Congress to give tacit approval to the tariffs.

[SaxxonWoods]

That’s a problem because the Supreme Court can’t rule based on economic damage.

[brownsfan]

Don’t give Roberts another reason to screw things up. Anything he can do to hurt this admin is on Robert’s agenda.

[Georgia Girl 2]

Roberts will find a way to try and eff this up. 😤

[central_va]

Some of you don’t know it but SCOTUS is a legislative and execute body that is totally politicized. It has been that way since Rowe and Bakke. Both used the USC into toilet paper.

[Carry_Okie]

That’s a problem because the Supreme Court can’t rule based on economic damage.

Really? Let's check the preeminent statement in the Supreme Law of the Land:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. It may be that the SCOTUS hasn't ruled on this little matter and has avoided the Preamble in general, but to fail to take economic damage of this magnitude into account in weighing this case is to ignore the purpose for the Court's existence.

[central_va]

They ruled on past damage that slavery did to future generations or some such crazy shit. How in anyway is affirmative action Constitutional. SCOTUS is a joke.

[HonorInPa]

The economy is grinding to a halt, and the best cure is lower interest rates. Dumping $2,000 checks into the system ala Biden-covid will increase inflationary pressure thus allowing the Fed to continue on their high-rate path. Pay down the deficit! Also, if there are checks, why not give them to valid taxpayers, regardless of income, rather than those already living a subsidized lifestyle?

[SaxxonWoods]

“...to fail to take economic damage of this magnitude into account in weighing this case is to ignore the purpose for the Court’s existence.”

So, the fact that money would be lost can overrule the Constitution? They could have stopped many things with that idea.

[yuleeyahoo]

Unless there is substantial changes to US federal law, Trump will end up being another speed-bump on the globalism super highway. Just like Reagan was.

[delchiante]

Govt of the Swamp, by the Swamp, for the Swamp must perish from the earth.

[ClearCase_guy]

1) It is a shame that our courts have become so political.
2) But it is absolutely a FACT that our courts have become political.

The Supreme Court either supports Trump, or it doesn’t.

Sure, it would be nice to have a really solid legal decision from the Supreme Court — but they haven’t played the game that way in many years.

[Thank You Rush]

“”Trump also said his administration is looking into $2,000 stipends to lower- and middle-income Americans through tariff dividends, as well as paying off the national debt.””

No other way for it to end if the USSC goes against him..he will have no choice but to backtrack and take the flak. Didn’t learn not to count chickens before they hatch??

[Carry_Okie]

So, the fact that money would be lost can overrule the Constitution? They could have stopped many things with that idea.

Trying to spin what I said makes for dishonest exchange.

This case hinges upon emergency powers as delegated by Congress. At that point, interpreting what constitutes an emergency is subjective and up to the President. Whether that is an unconstitutional delegation of power then gets back to emergency powers of the Commander in Chief charged with "providing for the common defence." An economic collapse fits that exigency. For the SCOTUS to ignore such a likely prospect fails the test of the Preamble to "promote the general welfare," the basis for its existence.

Moreover, it is demonstrable that the President is using tariffs as a tool for negotiation with foreign powers, not a few of whom are evidently hostile adversaries, which is exclusively an executive function of the President. This is not a simple case of "legality" because of the obvious need to weigh countervailing principles, not the least of which is that this President ran for his current office on a record of setting tariffs in his prior Administration.

[dpetty121263]

The disaster is waiting in the wings already.....

[dynoman]

Imagine what China et al will think if the SC shuts down the ability of the president to control tariffs - and gives that authority to congress. They likely would be amazed that we would shoot ourselves in both feet like that. It would be national suicide.

[Pete Dovgan]

The basic premise of the complaint is this:
1) The Legislative branch has sole rights to levy taxes.

The first is clearly stated in the Constitution, that only Congress can levy Taxes. However, it doesn’t apply here. The Executive branch can levy fees, which essentially what Tariffs are, fees to bring in goods to the US. Just like the State Department collect fees for many things like passports. So yes, the Executive has the right to collect fees. Tariffs are not mandatory to citizens, and may not even be PAID by citizens (potentially foriegn nations/corporations pay them). So it’s not really a ‘TAX’ in how Trump is using them, it’s actually a FEE. They are calling it a Tariff, but it’s actually a FEE to nations to access the US economy that is graduated depending upon things like: intellectual theft, Slave labor, cheap unsupported labor, no human rights......ect. ect. ect.. It doesn’t have to do with the price of the product, it has to do with ‘other’ factors including Foreign government subsidies. They can be used to make Foreign prices higher-then it’s actually a Tariff, but if it’s used for other reasons and it’s not UNIFORM, it’s part of Trade and it’s essentially a FEE. Trump’s list of factors that was utilized for the ‘Tariff’ included many things

“AI: Tariffs vs. taxes and fees
Tariffs are taxes: Tariffs are a form of direct tax that governments impose on imported goods. They increase the cost of foreign goods to make domestic products more competitive.

Fees are different: “Fee” is a broader term and can include charges for specific services or regulations, such as a Merchandise Processing Fee or a Harbor Maintenance Fee. These are separate from the tariff itself.

Tariffs can be a tax and a tool: Governments use tariffs as a source of revenue and as a tool to shape international relations and trade policy. “

Therefore, based upon the description/definition....they really aren’t ‘Tariffs’ they are actually ‘Fees’ falsely being labelled ‘Tariffs’ and are part of ‘Trade’.