That is somewhat comforting, but the Left thrives within hurdles, and the Presidents other tariff avenues are fraught with time consuming technicalities and hurdles, which the Left will undoubtedly abuse to their absolute maximum benefit.
What a mess this SCOTUS decision hath wrought. Shame on Barrett, Gorsuch and Roberts for having created it.
And If only we had an actually effective Congress who could enact legislation clearly giving the President they authority he needs to save this country from ruin, but,alas, they’re the very ones who got this country into this devastating economic nightmare in the
This is a win. Not because the Court helped Trump—but because it exposed the battlefield. He still has tariffs to raise revenue. He still has Section 232, 301, 122, and more to cut deals and squeeze bad actors. What he lost was speed, not strength. And now he knows exactly who the institutional skeptics are. The Court showed its cards. The dissent showed the path forward. Trump thrives when boxed in. He builds around obstacles. Slower process means stronger record and tougher tariffs. The leverage remains. The message stands: America negotiates from power, not apology.
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.
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.
Way to go Kavanaugh !!
Now go get you a beer, you deserve it..
Better yet, get a 6 pack and pour them on the heads of your 6 stupid cohorts.
That is somewhat comforting, but the Left thrives within hurdles, and the Presidents other tariff avenues are fraught with time consuming technicalities and hurdles, which the Left will undoubtedly abuse to their absolute maximum benefit.
What a mess this SCOTUS decision hath wrought. Shame on Barrett, Gorsuch and Roberts for having created it.
And If only we had an actually effective Congress who could enact legislation clearly giving the President they authority he needs to save this country from ruin, but,alas, they’re the very ones who got this country into this devastating economic nightmare in the
first place.
Ugh. 😒
This is a win. Not because the Court helped Trump—but because it exposed the battlefield. He still has tariffs to raise revenue. He still has Section 232, 301, 122, and more to cut deals and squeeze bad actors. What he lost was speed, not strength. And now he knows exactly who the institutional skeptics are. The Court showed its cards. The dissent showed the path forward. Trump thrives when boxed in. He builds around obstacles. Slower process means stronger record and tougher tariffs. The leverage remains. The message stands: America negotiates from power, not apology.
Thanks for the explanation. There are so many hot takes going out about this.
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.
Trust President Trump to be a few steps ahead. The administration anticipated this and were ready to alter course immediately.
Well, reading this has been a huge relief.
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. 😏
Superb analysis in record time. Bravo.
Thanks for the explanation, I feel much better after reading your post.
As usual Muse, you always land with a great perspective and understanding. Love you work. 👍
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.
Extremely valuable and swift explanation. Well done.
This is why I subscribe.
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.
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.