The high court is, well, courting controversy with the White House. But they’re no “resistance heroes.”
Good for SCOTUS on pushing back against Trump on tariffs, but do they really deserve much credit? And why did it take so long? The justices took just weeks in 2024 to grant “presumptive” immunity for acts committed as president—surely a much thornier issue—including insurrection and election subversion, clearing the path for Trump to be on the presidential ballot and win a second term.
So if the Constitution is so clear that tariffs are a tax, and that Trump’s extortionary leverage thereof is illegal, why the months since oral arguments?was a crisp 21 pages, not that complicated or bogged down by legalese. By simply calling a tariff what it is, SCOTUS upended Trump’s economic policy, and lifted the burden placed callously on small businesses and giant corporations alike while the president claimed foreign countries were footing the bill. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in plain language that the Framers gave Congress alone “access to the pockets of the people.” Despite Trump’s insistence that tariffs are not a tax, they are in the Supreme Court’s view, “a tax levied on imported goods and services.”What happens next, though, is where the good news of a democracy’s “checks and balances” can go bad. However good it feels, the court’s ruling heralds more chaos in the global markets and makes an already dangerous president more unpredictable. In, he threw in the White House pressroom, Trump asked plaintively why the justices didn’t include a ruling on the money raised through tariffs, and what to do with it. Truth is, it’s already mostly spent and spoken for. Trump has probably guessed correctly that it will all be litigated for years; FedEx has already filed suit to recover revenue lost to tariffs. Ordinary consumers in addition to companies big and small will surely also be suing the federal government, writes Eleanor Clift.That’s the least of it. We’ve already seen the president striking out and calling the three conservative justices who voted against himclaiming further that they were “under foreign influence.” There are reports that Trump has called foreign leaders to tell them not to pay attention to the Court’s ruling, and to show who’s in charge, he has slapped a new 15 percent tariff across the board that, according to law, he has the power to enforce for 150 days before having to consult Congress.the State of the Union last night before taking the podium, where he called their ruling on tariffs “very unfortunate.” It was quite measured—muted, even—by comparison.And maybe more fiery meltdowns is what the court’s majority would have wanted. Every instance in which they’re seen as standing up to Trump, after all, gives them cover for making decisions—messy, controversial ones—that are more to his liking.. Devon Ombres, senior director for Courts and Legal Policy at liberal thinktank the Center for American Progress told the Daily Beast that it has to do with Roberts and the reputation of the court he leads. “Robert is the consummate actor. He gives on the one hand and taketh away with the other,” Ombres warned. President Donald Trump speaks to reporters during a news conference on tariffs on Friday, Feb. 20, 2026, at the White House in Washington, D.C.in a pivotal voting rights case, Louisiana v Callais, which addresses the issue of race in drawing a second majority-Black congressional district in the state. Based on the tone of questioning in oral arguments, SCOTUS seems poised to gut what’s left of the 1965 Voting Rights Act with its ruling, overturning precedent that has long served as a guardrail to prevent “packing”If the Court acts as predicted, it will serve as a death knell for an era of racial progress and respect for diversity.So while Trump critics can revel in this rare win, “it was a temporary declaration of independence,” added Larry Sabato, founder and director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia. “The conservatives will feel even more liberated to vote with Trump.” “They can point to this,” Sabato continued, just like the way Roberts did when voting to save the Affordable Care Act, to show they’re not just—or not always—not a rubber stamp for the White House. The court gets to play the “resistance hero” in moments like this, yes. But it is still working to reshape America—and American values—in pivotal and dangerous ways. And whileare a reminder that the president’s mood and agenda is often slapdash and reactive, we must remember the SCOTUS majority has a bigger picture view, if not an outright agenda. They can grin and bear his meltdowns—welcome them, even—because they’re playing the long game.
Supreme-Court-Of-The-United-States Tariffs Supreme-Court Chief-Justice-John-Roberts Rights Affordable-Care-Act Voting-Rights
United States Latest News, United States Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Trump Reacts to Supreme Court Tariff Ruling, Announces Global 10% TariffPresident Trump responded to a Supreme Court decision striking down his broad tariffs by immediately announcing a 10% global tariff and reaffirming the use of other legal avenues to impose trade duties. The court ruled the president cannot unilaterally set tariffs.
Read more »
Businesses Face Uncertainty Over Tariff Refunds After Supreme Court RulingBusinesses are seeking clarity on how to receive refunds for tariffs struck down by the Supreme Court, with many expressing concern over the potential need for legal action and complex processes to recover the money.
Read more »
Supreme Court Tariff Ruling: Market Reaction and Strategic ImplicationsAn analysis of the Supreme Court's tariff ruling, assessing President Trump's available trade policy options, the market's pre-existing expectations, and the impact on various sectors and investment strategies. It also includes risk disclosures and disclaimers about data accuracy and trading risks.
Read more »
The Tariff Ruling Shows the Roberts Court Is More Pro-Corporate Than Pro-TrumpThe mainstream media, and even much of the progressive media, is misinterpreting the tariff decision as demonstrating the Roberts Court's independence and judicial neutrality. Instead, it demonstrates the court's true masters.
Read more »
FedEx seeks a tariff refund in court after they are ruled illegal by Supreme CourtFedEx is suing the U.S. government, requesting a full refund on what it paid for tariffs set by President Donald Trump last year after the Supreme Court ruled that the tariffs are illegal. FedEx said in a filing with the U.S.
Read more »
Why prices won't drop after the Trump tariff ruling, according to economistsThe Supreme Court struck down President Trump's signature tariffs. But the president has other tariff tools, and consumers shouldn't expect cheaper prices anytime soon, economists say.
Read more »