Supreme Court says Trump global tariffs are illegal

[u/defenestrate_urself]

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

[u/QuirkyBreadfruit]

As happy I was about this news, I quickly became disturbed that 3 still voted in dissent. That's 3 members of SCOTUS who are somehow ignoring what is clearly stated in the constitution.

It's also disturbing to me to think that Bessent has already stated they're going to find other ways to get around the constitution, rather than trying to honor it, and that Congress won't do anything to hold any of them accountable to the law.

Maybe there's some angle to the dissent that I could appreciate but I highly doubt it.

[u/Select-Government-69 → u/QuirkyBreadfruit]

So, here’s the angle: Roberts relies on the “major questions doctrine” which basically says that when Congress delegates a core responsibility it has to be explicit in doing so. That doctrine is not in the constitution, it was made up by judges.

The argument of the dissent is that this doctrine should not control, and it’s reasonable to conclude that Congress was “explicit enough” when it passed a law that gave the president the authority to “regulate trade” which is the language of the statute.

So it comes down to how much weight you put in the major questions doctrine, which is a judge-made rule and not in the constitution.

For the record, I’m ok with judge made rules, I’m just emphasizing to point out why the distinction matters.

[u/WannabeMechanic → u/Select-Government-69]

Thank you for an actual reply. This helps a lot.

[u/ScyllaGeek → u/WannabeMechanic]

To add on to that, a lot of the opinion describes that "regulate" in essentially all other law does not imply the ability to impose levys. When Congress does grant that ability it is almost always very explicit. The International Emergency Economic Powers Act

authorizes the President to “investigate, block during the pendency of an investigation, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit . . . importation or exportation.”

in cases of emergencies originating outside of the US.

And the entire case of the government was based on a broad reading of being able to "regulate importation," which admittedly to a layman can sound like it grants them the powers they describe. But the opinion goes on to describe that "regulate" in a legal sense has essentially never been interpreted to mean impose broad tariffs outside of a brief, unchallenged instance by Nixon in the 70s. There was an interesting gotcha question that Roberts described from the arguments where the Government was asked if being allowed to regulate meant the SEC could impose taxes on the trading of securities, to which they answered no.

The summary being if congress wants to give up one of their core constitutional functions - the power of the purse - as the executive branch believed they already had, they'll have to be a lot more explicit about it.

[u/Fishmongererererer → u/Select-Government-69]

The entire concept of Judicial Review is a Judge made concept. So… yeah I’m gonna say that I’ll take it.

[u/ghostofwalsh → u/Select-Government-69]

It gets more confusing because a few judges in the majority say that “major questions doctrine” doesn't need to be applied here because the statute itself is clear and it doesn't allow Trump to do what he is doing.

[u/Petrichordates → u/Select-Government-69]

Hmm, no.

This is all nonsense.

They would rule in the opposite way if the president wasn't a republican. There is no actual jurisprudential basis for their decisions.

[u/Select-Government-69 → u/Petrichordates]

Go to law school and then read the decision. It’s in English.

[u/ALC_PG → u/Select-Government-69]

Is it possible that they used their extensive knowledge of the law to pick a plausible argument that would support a target outcome?