Lose one, win one?

General Discussion
1

In Pa there used to be a system of “arbitrating” accident cases. This wasn’t really “arbitration”, the 3 attorneys who decided these cases didn’t elicit an agreement, they just ruled, they were judges. But anyway, as I understood it (PI isnt my field.) the panel would often hear 3 cases on the same day involving the same attorney. The legend was they always let you win one, ruled against you on the other, and split the third. Just human nature. (And a good argument for AI)

Welp, the administration had two biggies before the Supreme Court, at least: the tariffs, and birthright citizenship. Today they slapped down the tariffs. The U.S. is actually going to have to refund $289B! But to my amazement, the stock market didn’t fall. The Trump admin said they were ready for this, and..it looks like they are.

All this by way of saying that now, SCOTUS doesnt hafta worry about criticism as a buncha Trump puppets, so….maybe they’ll do the right thing on birthright citizenship. In the long run I think that will have a more substantial and enduring effect on our country, God save her.

4 Likes
2

I find it shocking SCOTUS finally found an example of executive exercise of power of which it disapproves. If only the hundreds/thousands of other illiberal exercises of state power (including regulatory and mountains of legislative matters which ought to be inherently non-delegable) would be stricken. As you say, God please save us, SCOTUS won’t.

3 Likes
3

SCOTUS CAN’T, if we have a rogue executive like whoever composed the “Biden” entity. When the court ruled against that administration, it just….did what it wanted anyway, like with the student loans.

4 Likes
4

Not so fast, hon. Read carefully. It’s not the tariffs, it’s some tariffs. “Dragged behind horses” seems a tad mild to me.

they struck down one specific authority used to impose 40% of the tariffs, and those can just be reimposed under a different authority. the other tariffs aren't even affected. regardless of whether you agree with tariffs or not, headline writers need to be dragged behind horses https://t.co/ED9qCHmHsX

— doomer (@uncledoomer) February 20, 2026

per Grok:

the Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling invalidates only tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)

3 Likes
5

This entire story has evolved tremendously since you originally wrote this, I think. Since the ruling, Trump has actually increased the tariff rates worldwide. TAW!

4 Likes
6

You’re so right! Golly he moves fast!

3 Likes
7

Back to your main point, Hypatia – if the “Supremes” have established their “independence” by voting against the Administration on this issue, then maybe it will give them cover with the blue-hairs for resolving the birthright citizenship issue properly. We can hope! Although nothing short of self-immolation will ever make the self-hating blue-hairs happy.

3 Likes
8

From DJT:

Our Country is the “HOTTEST” anywhere in the World, but now, I am going in a different direction, which is even stronger than our original choice. As Justice Kavanaugh wrote in his Dissent:

“Although I firmly disagree with the Court’s holding today, the decision might not substantially constrain a President’s ability to order tariffs going forward. That is because numerous other federal statutes authorize the President to impose tariffs and might justify most (if not all) of the tariffs issued in this case…Those statutes include, for example, the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (Section 232); the Trade Act of 1974 (Sections 122, 201, and 301); and the Tariff Act of 1930 (Section 338).”

Thank you Justice Kavanaugh!

6 Likes
9

In case you missed it, Hypatia, here is the take on the situation by an optimistic lawyer. It might be titled “Win two, maybe win some more”:

:hot_beverage: TARIFF TURNABOUT☙ Saturday, February 21, 2026 ☙ C&C NEWS :microbe:

“… We will focus on a key moment from November’s oral arguments that lifts the curtain, letting us see what’s really happening behind the scenes. In paraphrase, at page 69 in the transcript, Justice Gorsuch asked, If we let THIS president use IEEPA for tariffs, what stops the NEXT president from declaring a climate emergency and taxing gas-powered pickup trucks out of existence?

Here’s the thing: don’t miss this. When Gorsuch asked him about the peril of future presidents, the DOJ’s lawyer —Trump’s lawyer— agreed. If IEEPA allows Trump tariffing, then a future Democrat president could also use it, for whatever insane progressive agenda they felt like, just by declaring a “state of emergency.” Nobody disputed that; everybody agreed.

The Firewall. And that, as they say, was that. The ambiguously worded statute was a disaster waiting to happen, like handing a chimpanzee a live grenade, or worse, giving a toddler a permanent marker. When they stripped tariffs from IEEPA, Justices Gorsuch, Roberts, and Barrett weren’t betraying Trump. They were protecting America from the next Democrat president —a Warren or Newsom— declaring a climate emergency and using IEEPA to impose the Green New Deal by fiat.

So they built a firewall. …”

and

“… The Machete. The majority’s legal reason for chopping out IEEPA’s tariff power was actually another gift to conservatives— a sharpened machete. Since 2022 or so, the Court has been sharpening a legal rule called the “Major Questions Doctrine” (MQD), which basically says the Executive Branch can’t just ‘read between the lines’ or ‘fill in the gaps’ of statutes, even if they are badly written or ambiguous.

MQD is widely considered a revolutionary tool that could finally clear the ungovernable wilderness of the administrative state— a goal conservatives have longed for since the FDR days. …”

5 Likes