Supreme Court rules on Trump tariffs in major test of executive branch powers

Foxnews ^ | 2/20//2026 | Breanne Deppisch

[NeverTyranny]

The Supreme Court on Friday blocked President Donald Trump’s use of an emergency law to unilaterally impose sweeping tariffs on most U.S. trading partners, delivering a blow to the president in a case centered on one of his signature economic policies — one he characterized as "life or death" for the U.S. economy.

In a 6-3 decision, the justices invalidated Trump's tariffs.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in November in the case, which centered on Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to enact his "Liberation Day" tariffs on most countries, including a 10% global tariff and a set of higher, so-called "reciprocal" tariffs on certain nations.

[central_va]

Ok so do I get the last post? Don’t respond .

[rottweiller_inc]

“Yet the Constitution clearly gives the Negotiations for Trade in the power of the Executive.”

You forgot the rest of that, you know, where the president then submits the results of his negotiations to congress for approval.

[rodguy911]

Here's what AI has to say bout section 301 which can be solely run by the President. However, he has to have congressional approval by both houses.

Conclusion:

While the president plays a pivotal role in trade enforcement through appointments and implementation of policy, Congress retains significant influence through legislative powers, oversight, and the ratification of trade agreements.

This balance ensures that trade policy reflects broader national interests and receives checks from both branches of government.

Trade Agreements:

While the president can negotiate trade agreements, Congress must approve these agreements through a vote, especially if they involve significant changes to trade policy.

(I think this screws over the President since our majorities are so thin in both houses the likely hood of getting what we have now under his current tariff negotiations is very low.Were we to get bigger majorities in both houses we might get everything he has now passed.)

Resolution of Disputes:

Congress can express it's views or take actions against the president's trade strategies, particularly if they believe these decisions adversely affect American interests.

(The commie left would do this in a heartbeat and drag it into Nov. without even thinking twice)

GPT-4o mini:

Yes, you are correct.

Here's a more detailed examination of how Congress interacts with trade agreements and resolutions of disputes:

Trade Agreements

Presidential Negotiation

Authority:

The president holds the authority to negotiate trade agreements with other countries. This process typically involves the U.S. Trade Representative leading negotiations based on the president's policy priorities.

Congressional Approval

Vote Requirement:

Once negotiations are complete, the agreements must be submitted to Congress. For significant agreements, Congress generally must approve them through a formal vote. This ensures that elected representatives have a say in binding international commitments.

(Basically, in the current congress,it would ensure the President wuld never get anything passed no matter what it is.)

Fast-Track Authority:

Under certain circumstances, Congress can grant the president "fast-track" authority, allowing trade agreements to be voted on without amendments, streamlining the ratification process. Even with this authority, Congress retains the right to reject agreements.

(We now see just how important big majorities are in congress. Without enough votes we will always be screwed by congress)

Resolution of Disputes

Congressional Oversight

Monitoring Trade Policy:

Congress monitors the president's trade strategies and can hold hearings to review actions taken by the USTR or the executive branch regarding trade enforcement.

Expressing Views

Resolutions and Statements:

Congress can pass resolutions or make statements to express their views on trade policies. While these may not have the force of law, they can influence public opinion and the executive branch's actions.

(Time for the driveby media to voice their opinion just what we don't need)

Potential Actions

Legislative Moves:

If Congress believes the president's trade decisions negatively impact American interests, they may enact legislation to counteract those decisions or apply pressure on the administration to change course. This can include:

Cut funding for certain trade initiatives.

Introduce bills that restrict certain trade practices.

In summary, while the president has significant powers in negotiating and implementing trade agreements, Congress plays a crucial role in approving these agreements and overseeing trade policy to ensure it aligns with national interests. This system of checks and balances helps safeguard against unilateral decisions that could adversely affect the economy or international relations.

So even thought section 301 can be implemented mostly by the president he is still subject to congressional approval,is it necessary in both the house and the senate? GPT-4o mini

Yes, while the president can implement actions under Section 301 regarding unfair trade practices, congressional approval is necessary for certain aspects, particularly for implementing new trade agreements or significant changes to existing trade policy. Here's a breakdown:

Congressional Approval

Role of Both Chambers: Congressional approval is required from both the House of Representatives and the Senate for treaties and significant trade agreements.

Fast-Track Authority: If the president negotiates a trade agreement under fast-track authority, Congress can vote to approve it, but this typically does not allow for amendments, ensuring a quicker process. However, both chambers must still agree to the terms.

Legislation for Trade Actions: If the president takes specific trade actions, such as imposing tariffs, Congress may not need to approve these actions directly but can influence them through subsequent legislation, oversight, or resolutions expressing discontent.

Conclusion

In summary, while the president can act independently under Section 301 to respond to unfair trade practices, any substantial changes to trade agreements or policies still require the approval of both the House and Senate. This ensures that there is a balanced approach to U.S. trade policy, incorporating input from both legislative chambers.

...............................

In other words unless we get strong majorities in both houses we will still need congressional approval.Even then with strong majorities its still needed.

President Trump may have other ways of implementing the excellent ways he negotiated the tariffs.

If not we will be in legal limbo over the near one trillion bucks he got for the country for who knows how long. These two patriots were instrumental in getting the tariffs negotiated,lets hope their work will stand:

[rodguy911]

You are living in a world of 40 years ago. Little of what you posted stands today. It’s all partisan politics.We win or lose no inbetween.

[rodguy911]

There is a work around, and its already to go.

Agreed.

It would be un-Trump if he didnt already have plan II in the works.Thank God we have president Trump. He's smarter than any of the commie players and it comes out exactly when he needs it to.

[rodguy911]

This court actually cares about separation of powers.

Unlikely in this court at least on the left. The left has purosly installed far left goons on the court who usually vote our side out at least 90% of the time.Those who cant see that are not looking.

There may have been a time in the history of the court when they cared about the basics such as separation of powers but those days are far behind us.

[Pete Dovgan]

“You forgot the rest of that, you know, where the president then submits the results of his negotiations to congress for approval.“

No, didn’t forget. The system will work just fine right after we have a balanced budget amendment with loss of benefits and healthcare, and no re-election for those in Congress who fail. They will be begging for Tariffs.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

Unlikely in this court at least on the left. The left has purosly installed far left goons on the court who usually vote our side out at least 90% of the time.Those who cant see that are not looking.

Sure. The leftists on the Court absolutely don't believe in separation of powers - 100% agree there. But they're not the majority.

This Court is far from perfect. But in terms of separation of powers, the overall direction of this Supreme Court is more dedicated to that principle than any Supreme Court since the early 1930's.

[rottweiller_inc]

“They will be begging for Tariffs.”
I doubt anyone will want tariffs, since it is in fact a tax increase that is paid for not by the people in other countries or an importing business but by American consumers. Trump raised taxes on the public without consulting congress.

[rodguy911]

In many cases other coutries had been screwing the US over and over on excess tariffs to protect their goods. The minute we do it they were all upset.

Trump was forced to play hardball and literally tell those who had been screwing us for years that if they wanted to sell anything to us there was now a price. ,p> In many cases the tariffs became pretty equal on both sides. Trump has never wanted anything but "a fair game." Whether its deciding the vote or tariffs. He's looking for fairness and tired of our side getting screwed.

Once again we are lucky to have him.

[rottweiller_inc]

“VIn many cases other coutries had been screwing the US over and over on excess tariffs to protect their goods. The minute we do it they were all upset.”

MMM. not quite. When US companies off shored manufacturing they had to import to outsourced items back into the USA and since American manufacturing can’t replace the items with something American made, they are forced to pay more for the re-imported items that they need, many of which are made in other countries by American companies. The effects of Tariffs and who pays them are well known since tariffs didn’t just fall off the turnip truck yesterday and are some new thing. they fell into disuse for a good reason.

[Pete Dovgan]

Well you’re wrong.

Go research who ends up paying the Tariffs, most of it. The consumer is a small part of it. Most of its from the nations subsidizing destruction of our economy. The propaganda goes deep, the question I have for you is:

‘Do you really not understand why Tariffs help Americans because of the propaganda, or are you just part of the propaganda?’

For 50 years I have watched Nations target and destroy our industries by subsidies and cheap labor. Congress did nothing, because they just have the treasury print money. The other nations can pay to put products here, not put products here.

[rottweiller_inc]

Smoke and mirrors or say it is so is going to change the fact that the consumer pays the Tariffs. Trump know this. It’s why he was trying to get the American companies to “eat” the costs of the Tariffs so he could look like a winner to schlubs who will credulously believe anything he says.

[rottweiller_inc]

And as an aside lets review the Trump truthfulness scale in regards to Venezuela:
Trump say they are plinking civilian ships in international waters because they are terrorists smuggling fentanyl, which kills 25,000 people, to fund terrorism.
Then when Trump gets the President under arrest, it changes to smuggling cocaine, a criminal charge minus the whole terrorism-emergency justification.. You see, their own DEA said there was no significant production of Fentanyl in Venezuela.
Then Trump makes a bee line for the oil and promptly whisks away 50 billions worth.
Now we’ve invaded Venezuela, Taken over their oil fields with no declaration of war that would give any cover at all.

[rottweiller_inc]

And all of this started with declaring Fentanyl a weapon of mass destruction which gave an opening to go after the civilian ships.

[Pete Dovgan]

Look, it is not smoke and mirrors. Especially if you buy American. You won’t even hardly notice. Tariffs are a fee to access our market. If they don’t make sense then why has Europe, Japan, China, and everyone else blocked our products or Tariffed them? They weren’t taxing their consumers, they were gutting our economy.

[rottweiller_inc]

“Especially if you buy American.”

The point is, back a few years ago, if there were tariffs that raised the price of an imported widget you could buy an American that costs more but was of fair quality. Now between business’s chasing profit and government regulation and taxes have raised the cost of manufacturing in the USA prohibitively so there is no one who manufactures American widgets anymore so you have to buy the foreign one.

[Pete Dovgan]

“You see, their own DEA said there was no significant production of Fentanyl in Venezuela.“

The problem in Venezuela was: 1) given haven to cartels 2) messing with the US election system 3) pouring drugs into the US 4) exporting ‘Democratic Socialism’ to other western hemisphere nations. 5) sending terrorist teams , gangs, and murders to the US 6) uniting with foreign powers to extend influence in this hemisphere. Any one of them is adequate for a US Response, taken together it was already a war Venezuela started. Trump just ended said war with little bloodshed.

One more little thing. Fentanyl is manufactured from precursors, and it’s either manufactured in China, or hostile nations are used by China to get around shipping bans on precursors. Venezuela was a puppet, just like North Korea, and Russia and China was the hand.

People that aren’t happy Trump a king out Venezuela seem to be inclined to ‘Democratic Socialism’ and its variants or just Anti-American, suffer from TDS, and/or don’t care about Americans, or all three. I don’t care if Americans personally like Trump, it isn’t required. I can’t understand those just being anti-Trump with policies that help Americans and its people. Venezuela was a problem, of foreign influence, in this hemisphere. Now it’s not.

[rottweiller_inc]

“The problem in Venezuela was: 1) given haven to cartels 2) messing with the US election system 3) pouring drugs into the US 4) exporting ‘Democratic Socialism’ to other western hemisphere nations. 5) sending terrorist teams , gangs, and murders to the US”

You know why the US didn’t charge the Venezuelan President with all of that? Because Trump would have to prove that in a US court. I guess Trump can continue the terrorism fiction as long as his military keeps destroying any evidence and killing any witness who might be able to say differently about what was on these boats they are blowing up.

[rottweiller_inc]

I want to share with you something my father told me a long time ago: People who have to advertise their honesty, probably aren’t. The guy was in car sales.