Posted on 02/23/2026 5:11:18 AM PST by karpov
A 6-3 Supreme Court majority on Friday struck down President Trump’s sweeping emergency tariffs (Learning Resources v. Trump) in a monumental vindication of the Constitution’s separation of powers. You might call it the real tariff Liberation Day.
It’s hard to overstate the importance of the Court’s decision for the law and the economy. Had Mr. Trump prevailed, future Presidents could have used emergency powers to bypass Congress and impose border taxes with little constraint.
As Chief Justice John Roberts explains in the majority opinion, “Recognizing the taxing power’s unique importance, and having just fought a revolution motivated in large part by ‘taxation without representation,’ the Framers gave Congress ‘alone . . . access to the pockets of the people.’”
Mr. Trump last February deemed fentanyl trafficking a national emergency, which he claimed gave him unbridled authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico. He later said the U.S. trade deficit is an emergency to justify tariffs on any country at rates he has adjusted at his personal whim.
IEEPA grants the President emergency powers to deal with foreign threats, including the authority to “regulate . . . importation or exportation” of foreign property. But the law doesn’t mention tariffs, and no previous President has used the law to impose border taxes.
It’s “telling that in IEEPA’s ‘half century of existence,’ no President has invoked the statute to impose any tariffs—let alone tariffs of this magnitude and scope,” the Chief writes in an opinion joined by Justices Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett and the three liberals. “When Congress has delegated its tariff powers, it has done so in explicit terms, and subject to strict limits.”
These are signs that the tariffs violate the Court’s major questions doctrine
(Excerpt) Read more at wsj.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
Roberts Roberts Roberts
Seems implied by "regulate", but that's just me.
“”access to the pockets of the people””
I don’t get it...HOW is imposing tariffs - $$$$ paid TO the government - access to the pockets of the people? Isn’t that backward?
Must every day start out like this?
WSJ has gone completely off the rails, directly to leftist land.
Roberts and Obama and taxing us for Healthcare/
Obama used it, Biden used it as well as others way can’t Trump, oh he’s a Republican.
Yaa, so many articles that amount to nothing, the tariffs are not going way, in fact they increased.
The are truly living in a complete fantasy and are deceiving all 2 of their readers.
Should be called the Beijing Journal.
They (the WSJ) are proof of the limited usefulness of the Stock Market.
Private ownership gives people a better long-term picture.
yep, but now technically it can’t be used, not that it will stop a democrap president, I am sure the court would change its mind immediately for them.
“Roberts Roberts Roberts”
And Woman Woman Woman and one who doesn’t know the difference. (ducking)
Piss on the USSC. They didn’t even interpret the law. They made policy.
Tariffs are import duties, taxes paid by Americans on imported products.
The tax is ultimately paid by all consumers as they trickle down from importers selling to the consumer markets
I don’t know how to properly phrase it, but the tariff taxes are non regressive. That is , this form of taxation is paid by all and does not overlook those currently do not pay an income tax.
The court ruling will not cancel the tariffs, but redirect the legal basis under which they can be Presidentially imposed. The ruling is a matter of constitutional law rather than politics
This ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑
It’s the CCP Money talking.
I hate the WSJ.
They hate Trump.
Does any one still read WSJ? Financial news from internet sources is more up-to-date. Printed news is obsolete 5 minutes after it is printed.
The WSJ has correctly interpreted the ruling that redirects the legal basis for the tatiffs.
“I don’t know how to properly phrase it, but the tariff taxes are non regressive. That is , this form of taxation is paid by all and does not overlook those currently do not pay an income tax.”
Interesting that isn’t it? It is the closest thing to a “fair” tax we have. I’m all for it.
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.