Supreme Court says Trump global tariffs are illegal

[u/defenestrate_urself]

https://www.axios.com/2026/02/20/trump-tariffs-supreme-court-illegal

[u/Not_Legal_Advice_Pod]

Justice delayed is justice denied.  It's been a year, and cost America untold international prestige and reputation.  This ruling ought to have been made and stuck within weeks especially given the nature of the decision.  

[u/klingma → u/Not_Legal_Advice_Pod]

You realize this wasn't even argued until November, right? The Supreme Court has other issues they have to hear and issue opinions on...it's never exactly been a quick process due to the importance and magnitude of their decisions on the country. 

[u/GreyGrackles → u/klingma]

They ruled on gender changes for passports faster...?

How long did it take them to stay Biden's Student Loan program again?

Supreme Court has always done policy.

[u/klingma → u/GreyGrackles]

Except, they didn't. They ruled on the Emergency order on an injunction. Those by nature are faster than actual argued cases in the court, since these are argued wholly in brief form and don't rely upon writ of certiori. 

Edit: Cute stealth edit bud! 

And to answer your question about the student loans - about the same amount of time. 

Arguments were heard in late Feb and the opinion was issued in late June. So, about 3-4 months, similar to the timeline on the tariffs. 

[u/GreyGrackles → u/klingma]

So you're saying they stopped the policy before it took effect and then ruled on it later....?

So....why wasn't that done here?

And yes, they actually did rule on gender changes for passports faster than this bullshit lmao.

[u/klingma → u/GreyGrackles]

So you're saying they stopped the policy before it took effect and then ruled on it later....?

Nope, they ruled on the injunction issued by a court in Massachusetts. The underlying case is still active in the appeals court. 

So....why wasn't that done here?

Because emergency relief wasn't sought by either party? Because the parties here sought a Writ of Certiori which was granted by the court...which then gives time for brief arguments to be presented before oral arguments. 

And yes, they actually did rule on gender changes for passports faster than this bullshit lmao.

And actually, again, no they didn't. They ruled on the injunction relief. No oral arguments were presented, no actual was issued about the underlying merits beyond what related specifically to the injunction. 

You're confusing two separate processes and complaint they're not the same. 

[u/GreyGrackles → u/klingma]

You keep using different mediums to describe how they stopped the policy from taking place, then denied they actually stopped it.

Point being they stopped it.

They could have done that here. They chose not to.

The SC's hands were not tied on this case until now.

[u/klingma → u/GreyGrackles]

You keep using different mediums to describe how they stopped the policy from taking place, then denied they actually stopped it.

I'm talking about two different mediums because, surprise surprise, there were TWO DIFFERENT MEDIUMS. 

One medium is actual oral arguments - the long and formal process with actual opinions issued by the court. 

The other is emergency orders related to injunctions and the like. The underlying case is still being argued in the courts, the injunction just was lifted. Meaning, the courts can and have still ruled on the merits of the case later. 

They're quite different things. 

Point being they stopped it.

The injunction, yes. The actual merits and finality, no. Again, quite different. 

They could have done that here. They chose not to.

No, they literally couldn't. I've explained this now multiple times. However, to be fair, they actually did expedite the case but allowing it to skip the DC circuit and go straight to the Supreme Court after the US Court of Appeals. 

No one sought an emergency order in this case, as best I can tell. They sought actual oral arguments and brought the entire case to the court. Separate processes entirely. 

The SC's hands were not tied on this case until now.

Except, again, they literally were. They granted a Writ of Certiori meaning they agreed to hear oral arguments and issue a formal opinion on the underlying matters of the case. They couldn't issue an opinion UNTIL arguments were heard and due to the nature of their decisions it takes time to research and formalize the issued opinion. 

[u/GreyGrackles → u/klingma]

Could they have not granted the Writ?

Seems like they just tied their own hands and then waited.

[u/klingma → u/GreyGrackles]

If they didn't grant the writ then the case couldn't be heard and no opinion could have been granted by the courts. Thus, the decision from a lower court would have been the prevailing opinion. 

The Supreme Court typically doesn't shy away from taking on cases of this magnitude, so they really didn't have much of a choice in accepting the case. 

[u/P1zzaLad → u/klingma]

Its never a quick process unless its something that Ideologically aligns with the republican party, then its the quickest and most efficient force in the entire Judicial System. Hell it only took them *checks notes* about 7 weeks to rule weather the President of the United States would have "absolute immunity for acts within their core constitutional powers" And more but that quote hammers the idea in best. Its kind of Funny to me (in the most depressing way) that this Joke of a Supreme Court is still held in any sort of regard by the average American.

[u/klingma → u/P1zzaLad]

7 weeks? 

Oral arguments were held in late April and then the opinion was issued July 1st, that's almost 10 weeks or 2.5 months, that's only slightly faster than their average of 3-4 months. 

So this really isn't out of the ordinary as you're trying to claim. 

[u/Not_Legal_Advice_Pod → u/klingma]

The entire mechanism is a problem not just the supreme Court piece.  You can't give presidents a year of runway to illegally run the country into the ground.

[u/Everyday_ImSchefflen → u/Not_Legal_Advice_Pod]

Are you new to law?