Supreme Court Divides 6-3 On Whether Trump’s Tariffs Are Hot or Just Lukewarm Policy

KEY POINTS

•On Friday, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to strike down most of Trump's tariffs under a 1970s emergency import regulation law.
•Justices Kavanaugh, Thomas, and Alito dissented, arguing that presidential tariff powers are legal and rooted in historical practice.
•The dissents highlighted that the majority gave no solution for returning billions already paid, calling the reversal process 'likely a mess.'

On a legally spicy Friday, Supreme Court's cool 6-3 majority dismissed most of Trump’s tariff fiesta under a 1970 law about emergencies, setting off courtroom fireworks. Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito, the conservative tripod on this three-legged race, dissented vigorously, defending Trump's tariffs like they were presidential Popsicles stuck in a legal freezer. Kavanaugh claimed tariffs are ‘clearly lawful’ despite being ‘maybe unwise,’ likening tariff power to turning off China-import faucets but puzzling why a $1 tariff triggers legal alarms while shutting imports outright doesn’t. They also fretted that returning the billions collected is ‘likely a mess’—emphasis on mess, like cleaning glitter out of a wedding dress. Thomas doubled down on ‘historical practice’ allowing Congress to displace tariff powers to the prez, because apparently, constitutionality hugs tradition like a cozy constitutional blanket. The tariffs linger in dispute city, with IEEPA invoked, oral admissions of chaos, and future paperwork nightmares making regulatory cleaning crews say ‘no thank you.’