By Newsweek Editors
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
The Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling on Friday that President Donald Trump's tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) are unconstitutional was the first time the Court has issued a final ruling against a major Trump policy rather than a temporary stay. Chief Justice Roberts, joined by the three liberal justices and Trump appointees Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, found that IEEPA's authorization to "regulate" imports says nothing about tariffs, and that Congress never explicitly delegated such sweeping authority.
As much as $175 billion in tariff revenue now hangs in limbo, the Court leaving the refund question entirely to lower courts—a silence that Brett Kavanaugh, in dissent, called likely to be "a mess." Trump responded by calling the ruling "defective," accusing two of his own appointees of disloyalty to the Constitution, and announcing a replacement 10 percent global tariff under a different statute—which was later increased to 15 percent—before the afternoon was out.
Donald Trump ⬇
In January, Trump posted "WE'RE SCREWED" if the Supreme Court struck down his tariffs, while simultaneously arguing in court that a genuine national emergency justified them.
Read More on Opinion
The Court ruled there was no such emergency in IEEPA, then watched as Trump signed a replacement tariff and the stock market rallied before dinner. The only thing screwed was the legal theory.
Scott Bessent ⬇
Last March, he defended the tariffs in front of a roomful of economists arguing that "access to cheap goods is not the essence of the American dream." The Court just ruled those tariffs were an illegal tax on American importers all along, and the $175 billion in potential refunds flow back to Costco.
After the decision, asked if people will see any of that back, he said: "I’ve got a feeling the American people won’t see it." The American dream now has a no-refund policy.
Mike Johnson ⬇
Two weeks ago he lost a 214-217 procedural vote trying to prevent his own members from even symbolically challenging tariffs against Canada, burning his razor-thin majority to protect Trump from a show vote that is now moot.
Now that the Court has handed Congress actual constitutional ownership of tariff policy, his members will have to take real votes on one of the most unpopular economic policies in decades, meaning the headaches all belong to the House Speaker.
Lee Jae-myung ⬇
To lower U.S. tariffs from 25 percent to 15 percent, the South Korean president gave Trump a replica Silla dynasty gold crown, pledged $350 billion in investment, and staged the most elaborate act of diplomatic flattery since Versailles. Trump raised them back to 25 percent in January when South Korea's legislature moved too slowly on ratification.
The Supreme Court just struck down all IEEPA tariffs anyway—Lee paid full price for a discount on a product that was never legally for sale.
Letitia James ⬆
Since she won the fraud finding against Trump in New York state court, his DOJ indicted her for mortgage fraud on a property where she allegedly saved $17,000, got the case thrown out on a technicality, watched two grand juries refuse to reindict her, and on Friday she led the 12-state AG coalition that beat him at the Supreme Court.
Trump's one point: an appeals court voided her $450 million penalty. Current score: James 4, Trump 1.
Neil Gorsuch ⬆
Trump appointed him, and on Friday called his tariff ruling "an embarrassment to his family." Gorsuch joined the majority by applying the major questions doctrine—the principle that Congress must explicitly authorize policies of vast economic significance, also used to reverse Biden's student loan forgiveness—a doctrine Gorsuch himself built, championed, and put on the map.
He's being called disloyal for using a rule he invented—one that remains, to Trump’s chagrin, the law of the land.
Originally a staple of Newsweek's print edition, Conventional Wisdom used arrows to track whose stock was rising or falling in the political circus. We're reviving it in the digital age because the problem it lampooned—hyperbole and partisan certainty masquerading as insight—has only intensified.
CW assigns arrows—up, down, or sideways—to the figures and forces shaping current events. The arrows don't predict the future or claim special insight. They capture the prevailing winds of the moment, uncluttered by tribal howling. In an era when partisan media reinforces rather than questions assumptions, CW operates from the center—skeptical of left and right alike, committed to puncturing inflated reputations and recognizing overlooked truths.
Do you agree with our editors on which way the political winds are blowing? Send us a message here.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines