Mark R. Levin
@marklevinshow
The Supreme Court majority today issued a very messy and problematic decision. See below. The fact is the majority agreed on an outcome but not so much on the reasoning for the outcome. Furthermore, it struck tariffs under a single statute, yet created chaos or, actually, left it to the president to decide if and/or how to treat the revenue those tariffs already created for the federal Treasury.
The majority had a problem, which I said it would, should the Court move in this direction: tariffs are more than indirect taxes; they do, in fact, impact foreign affairs and national security matters and have been used for those specific purposes. Therefore, the question is not who has the power to tax per se, but a more complicated question about where the separation of powers is. The majority, apparently, chose to duck the question and stick with the indirect tax characterization and focus on a single statute, which is outrageous. It could not figure out how to bifurcate the Congress's power of the purse from the President's foreign policy powers, so it redefined the issue to reach the outcome -- and even then, they argued over the rationale.
So, we are left with even a worse ambiguity. 1. If only Congress can raise taxes, even indirectly, then how does the Court justify the entire regulatory state in the executive branch that raises indirect taxes hourly? Congress may have delegated that power to the bureaucracy, but it does not have the power to delegate legislative power and taxation. This goes back as far as John Locke's Second Treatise on Government. Yet the Court is okay with that since it is okay with the massive welfare state. 2. Putting aside the specific statute, it appears the President is still free to raise or cut tariffs under other statutes, but that will no doubt be challenged as well. The Court succeeded only in creating confusion going forward. 3. Since the Court foolishly decided to get involved in this matter, even though the majority states it is not getting involved in policy, it has gotten into policy, and it has not drawn a clear line on separation of powers because it cannot, and it created a terrible mess -- both legally and economically.
More later on radio.
ROBERTS, C. J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered theopinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II–A–1, and II–B, in which SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, GORSUCH, BARRETT, and JACKSON, JJ., joined, andan opinion with respect to Parts II–A–2 and III, in which GORSUCH and BARRETT, JJ., joined. GORSUCH, J., and BARRETT, J., filed concurring opinions. KAGAN, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which SOTOMAYOR and JACKSON, JJ., joined. JACKSON, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion. KAVANAUGH, J., fileda dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS and ALITO, JJ., joined.
10:04 AM · Feb 20, 2026
Topic: Supreme Court issues ruling on Trump tariffs case (Read 1763 times)
