Jeff Childers (Coffee & Covid) pointed out the silver lining a couple of days ago. The Courts e decision hinges on the fact that Congress did not EXPLICITLY give the Z President tariff authority in IEEPA. That means a President - think our next Communist, er, Democrat president - or Executive agency - think EPA - cannot INFER authority to take actions not specifically authorized by Congress. Rogue Federal agencies for decades have promulgated rules based on the theory that “If congress authorized us to do THAT, then surely we can also do THIS” (even though congress never mentioned THIS, and quite possibly never intended to).
The Court just opened a huge gateway through which to bring suit against aforementioned rogue agencies for unlawful regulatory over reach.
We should be joyful!
Childers also pointed out that this ruling provides political cover for the Court to side with President Trump in future rulings. “See, we don’t rubber stamp his policies!”
The Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling today (February 20, 2026) in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (consolidated with Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc.) has invalidated broad, sweeping tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Chief Justice Roberts' majority opinion held that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs, as it lacks explicit language or clear congressional delegation for such taxing powers—core to Article I. This effectively curtails the "shotgun" approach of wide-ranging, emergency-based duties (e.g., on trade deficits, drug trafficking, or reciprocal global tariffs).
Mr. President, this decision kicks the broad IEEPA tariff strategy to the curb, but it does not eliminate your ability to protect U.S. national sovereignty through targeted tariffs. Sovereignty here means safeguarding national security, critical supply chains, economic independence, and strategic industries from foreign threats (e.g., overreliance on adversaries for defense materials, tech, or energy).
Pivot Recommendation: Shift immediately to Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (19 U.S.C. § 1862), which explicitly delegates authority to impose tariffs or adjust imports when they threaten national security. Courts have upheld this repeatedly as constitutional, with an "intelligible principle" guiding action (e.g., Commerce Department findings).
Why Section 232 Works Post-Ruling:
Explicit tariff language and procedural safeguards (investigation ≤270 days, presidential decision ≤90 days, implementation ≤15 days).
"National security" broadly includes economic vulnerabilities, domestic production for defense, and supply-chain risks—directly tied to sovereignty.
Precedents like Federal Energy Administration v. Algonquin SNG, Inc. (1976), American Institute for International Steel v. United States (Fed. Cir. 2020), and Transpacific Steel LLC v. United States (Fed. Cir. 2021) affirm broad discretion here, with deference to executive judgments.
Unlike IEEPA, it survived non-delegation and major questions scrutiny.
Specific Targets and Limits to Assess/Implement:
Prioritize high-impact, sovereignty-protecting areas with strong factual nexus:
Steel, aluminum, and derivatives — Expand existing findings (e.g., to more products or countries) for defense/industrial base resilience.
Critical minerals and rare earths (e.g., from China) — Address overreliance threatening tech, batteries, EVs, and military applications.
Semiconductors and advanced electronics — Protect chip supply chains vital to national security and economic independence.
Pharmaceuticals/active ingredients — Counter foreign dominance risking health security.
Autos/parts and electric vehicles — Target subsidies/dumping eroding U.S. manufacturing sovereignty.
Implementation Guidance:
Direct Commerce to launch or update Section 232 investigations promptly, focusing on current threats (e.g., evolving foreign dominance).
Tie tariffs narrowly to security findings (e.g., 10-25% rates, targeted countries/products) to avoid overbreadth challenges.
Include modifications/flexibility for evolving conditions (per Transpacific).
Supplement with Section 301 (unfair practices, e.g., IP theft/subsidies) for retaliatory tariffs on specific threats like China.
Assess fees/limits: Start with moderate, evidence-based rates; monitor economic impact; build in review periods.
This pivot keeps tools lawful, defensible, and focused on sovereignty—avoiding IEEPA's pitfalls. If needed, pursue congressional clarification for broader authority. what federal court cases provide congressional delegated authority and guidance to the President to protect national sovereignty with use of tariffs.
As usual, your astute analysis is spot on. Not bad for a non-lawyer, who is a better Constitutional lawyer than most. Roberts has always been a hack with an agenda of his own, which is hard to identify. Suffice it to say that it is political, nothing to do with the law. A question worth considering is how did we end up with “factions” on the Supreme Court of the United States? The system envisioned by the Founders is broken - because their assumptions about human nature were correct. We are in a desperate spot when the Court can act preemptively in matters of critical importance at the highest level and ignore insurrection in the lower courts. This is highly unlikely to end well.
What it meant was that Trump was wrong to start his feverish tariff wars under this statute and it is only the congress that has the power to institute tariffs especially since Trump’s state of emergency existed only in his feverish brain.
No, rather comically I gather that is what you wish that it meant. The ruling did not say that 'only congress' has this power at all! President's have several options in regard to tarrifs and there is clear precedent under existing non-emergency statutes.
Not this President under the pretext he used illegally. His tariffs were stupid, poorly executed and he better not try more of his vindictive stupidity like his latest 15% balloon.
SCOTUS simply maintained that the IEEPA is an inappropriate statute to utilize regarding tariffs. Amuse simply lists the alternative legal options to the inappropriate sstatute. Not sure "right!" and "wrong" goes beyond that?
Tariffs are not complicated. In France, Amazon cannot discount new books by more than 5 percent. The result: France has bookstores. In America, Amazon can undercut bookstores by charging whatever it wants. The result: America barely has one national bookstore chain. Tariffs are imposed in one form or another throughout the world, because they make sense.
The fact is that Canada applies tariffs as a strategy to reduce the importation of US published books. Canada is actually implementing a new 25% tariff on books from the US in the near future. I guess Amazon will be selling a lot more books to Canadians. 😏
Excellent explanation of how the sausage actually gets made, I didn’t even have a working understanding of tariffs but if POTUS used the tool it is fine with me.
Jeff Childers (Coffee & Covid) pointed out the silver lining a couple of days ago. The Courts e decision hinges on the fact that Congress did not EXPLICITLY give the Z President tariff authority in IEEPA. That means a President - think our next Communist, er, Democrat president - or Executive agency - think EPA - cannot INFER authority to take actions not specifically authorized by Congress. Rogue Federal agencies for decades have promulgated rules based on the theory that “If congress authorized us to do THAT, then surely we can also do THIS” (even though congress never mentioned THIS, and quite possibly never intended to).
The Court just opened a huge gateway through which to bring suit against aforementioned rogue agencies for unlawful regulatory over reach.
We should be joyful!
Childers also pointed out that this ruling provides political cover for the Court to side with President Trump in future rulings. “See, we don’t rubber stamp his policies!”
SCOTUS must be cleaned out!!!!
The Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling today (February 20, 2026) in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (consolidated with Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc.) has invalidated broad, sweeping tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Chief Justice Roberts' majority opinion held that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs, as it lacks explicit language or clear congressional delegation for such taxing powers—core to Article I. This effectively curtails the "shotgun" approach of wide-ranging, emergency-based duties (e.g., on trade deficits, drug trafficking, or reciprocal global tariffs).
Mr. President, this decision kicks the broad IEEPA tariff strategy to the curb, but it does not eliminate your ability to protect U.S. national sovereignty through targeted tariffs. Sovereignty here means safeguarding national security, critical supply chains, economic independence, and strategic industries from foreign threats (e.g., overreliance on adversaries for defense materials, tech, or energy).
Pivot Recommendation: Shift immediately to Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (19 U.S.C. § 1862), which explicitly delegates authority to impose tariffs or adjust imports when they threaten national security. Courts have upheld this repeatedly as constitutional, with an "intelligible principle" guiding action (e.g., Commerce Department findings).
Why Section 232 Works Post-Ruling:
Explicit tariff language and procedural safeguards (investigation ≤270 days, presidential decision ≤90 days, implementation ≤15 days).
"National security" broadly includes economic vulnerabilities, domestic production for defense, and supply-chain risks—directly tied to sovereignty.
Precedents like Federal Energy Administration v. Algonquin SNG, Inc. (1976), American Institute for International Steel v. United States (Fed. Cir. 2020), and Transpacific Steel LLC v. United States (Fed. Cir. 2021) affirm broad discretion here, with deference to executive judgments.
Unlike IEEPA, it survived non-delegation and major questions scrutiny.
Specific Targets and Limits to Assess/Implement:
Prioritize high-impact, sovereignty-protecting areas with strong factual nexus:
Steel, aluminum, and derivatives — Expand existing findings (e.g., to more products or countries) for defense/industrial base resilience.
Critical minerals and rare earths (e.g., from China) — Address overreliance threatening tech, batteries, EVs, and military applications.
Semiconductors and advanced electronics — Protect chip supply chains vital to national security and economic independence.
Pharmaceuticals/active ingredients — Counter foreign dominance risking health security.
Autos/parts and electric vehicles — Target subsidies/dumping eroding U.S. manufacturing sovereignty.
Implementation Guidance:
Direct Commerce to launch or update Section 232 investigations promptly, focusing on current threats (e.g., evolving foreign dominance).
Tie tariffs narrowly to security findings (e.g., 10-25% rates, targeted countries/products) to avoid overbreadth challenges.
Include modifications/flexibility for evolving conditions (per Transpacific).
Supplement with Section 301 (unfair practices, e.g., IP theft/subsidies) for retaliatory tariffs on specific threats like China.
Assess fees/limits: Start with moderate, evidence-based rates; monitor economic impact; build in review periods.
This pivot keeps tools lawful, defensible, and focused on sovereignty—avoiding IEEPA's pitfalls. If needed, pursue congressional clarification for broader authority. what federal court cases provide congressional delegated authority and guidance to the President to protect national sovereignty with use of tariffs.
It sounds like Lutnik’s job is secure after all. Trump won’t want to take a chance on a new trade rep who might pull an Amy Coney Barrett.
As usual, your astute analysis is spot on. Not bad for a non-lawyer, who is a better Constitutional lawyer than most. Roberts has always been a hack with an agenda of his own, which is hard to identify. Suffice it to say that it is political, nothing to do with the law. A question worth considering is how did we end up with “factions” on the Supreme Court of the United States? The system envisioned by the Founders is broken - because their assumptions about human nature were correct. We are in a desperate spot when the Court can act preemptively in matters of critical importance at the highest level and ignore insurrection in the lower courts. This is highly unlikely to end well.
Scrotus was right! Your interpretation was wrong.
What it meant was that Trump was wrong to start his feverish tariff wars under this statute and it is only the congress that has the power to institute tariffs especially since Trump’s state of emergency existed only in his feverish brain.
No, rather comically I gather that is what you wish that it meant. The ruling did not say that 'only congress' has this power at all! President's have several options in regard to tarrifs and there is clear precedent under existing non-emergency statutes.
Not this President under the pretext he used illegally. His tariffs were stupid, poorly executed and he better not try more of his vindictive stupidity like his latest 15% balloon.
Spoken in TDS. Got it.
SCOTUS simply maintained that the IEEPA is an inappropriate statute to utilize regarding tariffs. Amuse simply lists the alternative legal options to the inappropriate sstatute. Not sure "right!" and "wrong" goes beyond that?
As usual Muse, you always land with a great perspective and understanding. Love you work. 👍
Good explanation. Appreciate it! 👍
So someone tell me the moment when the US Chamber of Commerce gained the membership of the CCP? Paying back tariffs is wrong. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/chamber-commerce-tariffs-ruling-welcome-181623119.html
Trust President Trump to be a few steps ahead. The administration anticipated this and were ready to alter course immediately.
Tariffs are not complicated. In France, Amazon cannot discount new books by more than 5 percent. The result: France has bookstores. In America, Amazon can undercut bookstores by charging whatever it wants. The result: America barely has one national bookstore chain. Tariffs are imposed in one form or another throughout the world, because they make sense.
So tell me why American books priced higher in Canada?
Because Canada isn’t France.
The fact is that Canada applies tariffs as a strategy to reduce the importation of US published books. Canada is actually implementing a new 25% tariff on books from the US in the near future. I guess Amazon will be selling a lot more books to Canadians. 😏
Excellent explanation of how the sausage actually gets made, I didn’t even have a working understanding of tariffs but if POTUS used the tool it is fine with me.
Justice Thomas also had a good response in his dissension. Both were constitutionally sound.
Justice Thomas also had a great response (opinion) in his dissension. Both were constitutionally sound.
Extremely valuable and swift explanation. Well done.
This is why I subscribe.
Thanks for the explanation, I feel much better after reading your post.
Excellent explanation!