Source item

Trump posted this earlier this afternoon. He expects the Supreme Court to rule against Tariffs. https://t.co/tWFmz6Ry0X Betting markets think Trump will lose at the Supreme Court. https://t.co/yPYKSK6sLM My arguments: tl;dr: Trump loses the case, but nothing really changes. The court will rule that IEEPA (economic) tariffs are illegal (~$167B). But as Trump noted above, they can apply them as a sanction (punishment). Secondly, the court will have to rule on whether the IEEPA tariffs must be repaid. The argument is that the court will NOT. The court does not want to be the one to tank the economy potentially. So, they will argue that Congress can remedy this (true) and tell them, "Do your job." ---- An interesting argument has been put forth by an amicus brief filed by the America First Policy Institute (AFPI) on September 23, 2025. (An amicus brief is a "Friend of the Court" brief. It is offered by experts in the field who are NOT involved in the case. They do this to provide the court with independent guidance.) Effectively, they are arguing under the Tariff Act of 1930, known as the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, that the president has the power to sanction or punish anyone who is operating against the interest of the United States. The brief said Trump should NOT have argued this case on economic (IEEPA) grounds but should have likened it to the President's broad powers to sanction and punish bad actors. On this front, the courts agree that the President does have this power, and it is not for the court to intervene; instead, it is Congress's job to limit the President's sanctions.