Posted on 02/20/2026 6:51:54 AM PST by CFW
The Supreme Court will be releasing opinions this morning at 10:00 a.m. Scotusblog will be live streaming the opinions and we will be following along.
A list of the pending cases can be found at:
There are four cases remaining from the October sitting yet to be decided. Of interest is Louisiana v. Callais (Voting Rights Act)
Issue: Whether Louisiana’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the 14th or 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
We may get that Opinion or maybe the tariffs case today. Or we may get just one or two boring opinions. In total there are 50 cases remaining to be decided for this term, plus an additional six cases on the interim docket (all cases against the Trump administration)
Opinions will be posted at the Court's website immediately after they are announced in court.
Follow along if you are interested.
(Excerpt) Read more at scotusblog.com ...
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
On a side note, the citizenship case will be argued before the Court on April 1st.
SCOTUS ping!
We have the first opinion of the day.
It is the tariffs case by Justice Roberts.
The President CANNOT impose tariffs.
Opinion here.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1287_4gcj.pdf
We’re screwed.
There goes America.
Yep. Bad decision by Justice Roberts (of course). Now other countries can tariff us as much as they want and the communists in our government can stop our President from retaliatory actions.
“Based on two words separated by 16 others in ... IEEPA,” Roberts writes, “ ‘regulate’ and ‘importation’—the President asserts the independent power to impose tariffs on imports from any country, of any product, at any rate, for any amount of time. Those words cannot bear such weight.”
(The court agrees with the Federal Circuit that the challenges can only be brought in the Court of International Trade.)
This is the only Opinion to be released today (that is enough damage for one day).
6-3, Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh dissent
Shows that the court is bought and owned.
Confusing score, but looks to be 6-3... libs and moderates accounted for the majority.
May not be a complete loss, seeing where it is more about sweeping tariffs
Media’s take on it:
“Stocks rebound from earlier losses after Supreme Court knocks down Trump’s emergency tariffs: Live updates”
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/02/19/stock-market-today-live-updates.html
There are other laws Trump can use to reimpose many of the tariffs, this seems specific to the IEEPA usage
Would the president be able to impose tariffs on specific products rather than on specific countries?
I heard this being talked about months ago as a possible solution.
Here’s the full rundown: “ROBERTS, C. J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II–A–1, and II–B, in which SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, GORSUCH, BARRETT, and JACKSON, JJ., joined,
and an opinion with respect to Parts II–A–2 and III, in which GORSUCH and BARRETT, JJ., joined. GORSUCH, J., and BARRETT, J., filed concurring opinions.
KAGAN, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which SOTOMAYOR and JACKSON, JJ., joined.JACKSON, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion. KAVANAUGH, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS and ALITO, JJ., joined.
Would the president be able to impose tariffs on specific products rather than on specific countries?
I heard this being talked about months ago as a possible solution.”
I believe that’s one possibility. Also, there are other laws the President can use to impose tariffs.
Why Congress could think it could subvert the constitution by giving the president the ability to impose tariffs is beyond me. The law should have been struck down after it was passed.
Congress has passed several laws delegating tariff-setting power to the President, primarily focusing on national security and economic emergencies. Key legislation includes Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, Sections 201 and 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977, allowing broad executive action on imports
Of course. The Blackmail Bank of America and the World Blackmail Bank have won again. 🤬
SCOTUS ruled today that IEEPA DOES NOT authorize the President to impose tariffs.
From the Court’s opinion:
“The question presented is whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) authorizes the President to impose tariffs. “
***
Held: IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.”
Add me or let me know of any SCOTUS/APPEALS Ping list?
Let me know? Thanks.
Tunehead54
- Charlie 😊
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.