Forgive me for bragging, but I got every justice correct.
Tariffs Shot Down
As expected in this corner, Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump’s Global Tariffs
President Trump’s global tariffs are illegal, the Supreme Court ruled Friday, in a stinging repudiation of a signature White House initiative.
The decision, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, removes a tool of diplomatic pressure that Trump has aggressively wielded to remake U.S. trade deals and collect tens of billions of dollars from companies importing foreign goods.
It is the first time the high court has definitively struck down one of Trump’s second-term policies. In other areas, the court’s conservative majority has so far granted Trump broad latitude to deploy executive power in novel ways, but a majority of justices—three conservatives and three liberals—said he went too far in enacting his most sweeping tariffs without clear authorization from Congress.
Three conservative justices—Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh—dissented.
The case involved two categories of tariffs. Trump imposed one category on virtually every country in the world, ostensibly to repair trade deficits. He imposed the other set of tariffs on Mexico, Canada and China, saying those countries are responsible for the flow of illegal fentanyl into the U.S.
The court rejected Trump’s argument that a 1977 law, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, implicitly authorized both groups of tariffs.
“Had Congress intended to convey the distinct and extraordinary power to impose tariffs, it would have done so expressly,” Roberts wrote.
The tariffs before the Supreme Court constituted a large majority of Trump’s duties. Over the next decade, the tariffs the president imposed through his claims of emergency powers were expected to raise about $1.5 trillion, according to the Tax Foundation, representing 70% of Trump’s second-term tariffs.
Trump imposed tariffs on Canada, China and Mexico in February of 2025 for not doing enough to prevent fentanyl and other illegal drugs from crossing the border into the U.S. Then in April, on a day he dubbed “Liberation Day,” Trump announced a general 10% tariff on imports from virtually all countries and steeper levies on those the administration deems to be bad actors in trade.
Until Trump, no president had invoked the emergency-powers law as a basis to impose tariffs. Three different lower courts ruled the tariffs unlawful, including a specialized federal appeals court of national jurisdiction that said the emergency-powers law didn’t authorize tariffs of the magnitude Trump imposed.
Across the three decisions, 15 judges weighed in on Trump’s actions, with 11 concluding the president exceeded his authority.
Trump has boasted about the billions of dollars being raised by his tariffs, despite the government arguing in court that any revenue is only incidental. The tariffs are in place to regulate foreign commerce, Solicitor General John Sauer told the justices during the November proceedings.
Supreme Court Decision
Please consider the Supreme Court Tariff Decision emphasis mine.
Held: IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. The judgment in No. 24–1287 is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; the judgment in No. 25– 250 is affirmed.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I and II–A–1: Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution specifies that “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.” The Framers recognized the unique importance of this taxing power—a power which “very clear[ly]” includes the power to impose tariffs. Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 201. And they gave Congress “alone . . . access to the pockets of the people.”
THE CHIEF JUSTICE, joined by JUSTICE GORSUCH and JUSTICE BARRETT, concluded in Part II–A–2: The Court has long expressed “reluctan[ce] to read into ambiguous statutory text” extraordinary delegations of Congress’s powers.
In several cases described as involving “major questions,” the Court has reasoned that “both separation of powers principles and a practical understanding of legislative intent” suggest Congress would not have delegated “highly consequential power” through ambiguous language. Id., at 723–724.
These considerations apply with particular force where, as here, the purported delegation involves the core congressional power of the purse. Congressional practice confirms as much.
When Congress has delegated its tariff powers, it has done so in explicit terms and subject to strict limits. Against that backdrop of clear and limited delegations, the Government reads IEEPA to give the President power to unilaterally impose unbounded tariffs and change them at will. That view would represent a transformative expansion of the President’s authority over tariff policy. It is also telling that in IEEPA’s half century of existence, no President has invoked the statute to impose any tariffs, let alone tariffs of this magnitude and scope. That “ ‘lack of historical precedent,’ coupled with the breadth of authority” that the President now claims, suggests that the tariffs extend beyond the President’s “legitimate reach.”
There is no exception to the major questions doctrine for emergency statutes. Nor does the fact that tariffs implicate foreign affairs render the doctrine inapplicable. The Framers gave “Congress alone” the power to impose tariffs during peacetime.
While taxes may accomplish regulatory ends, it does not follow that the power to regulate includes the power to tax as a means of regulation. Indeed, when Congress addresses both the power to regulate and the power to tax, it does so separately and expressly. That it did not do so here is strong evidence that “regulate” in IEEPA does not include taxation. A contrary reading would render IEEPA partly unconstitutional. IEEPA authorizes the President to “regulate . . . importation or exportation.” §1702(a)(1)(B). But taxing exports is expressly forbidden by the Constitution. Art. I, §9, cl. 5. The “neighboring words” with which “regulate” “is associated” also suggest that Congress did not intend for “regulate” to include the revenue-raising power.
JUSTICE KAGAN, joined by JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR and JUSTICE JACKSON, agreed that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs, but concluded that the Court need not invoke the major questions doctrine because the ordinary tools of statutory interpretation amply support that result.
ROBERTS, C. J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II–A–1, and II–B, in which SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, GORSUCH, BARRETT, and JACKSON, JJ., joined, and an 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., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS and ALITO, JJ., joined
The Constitution Survives
Beautifully Written Gorsuch Concurrence
For those who think it important for the Nation to impose more tariffs, I understand that today’s decision will be disappointing. All I can offer them is that most major decisions affecting the rights and responsibilities of the American people (including the duty to pay taxes and tariffs) are funneled through the legislative process for a reason. Yes, legislating can be hard and take time. And, yes, it can be tempting to bypass Congress when some pressing problem arises. But the deliberative nature of the legislative process was the whole point of its design. Through that process, the Nation can tap the combined wisdom of the people’s elected representatives, not just that of one faction or man. There, deliberation tempers impulse, and compromise hammers disagreements into workable solutions. And because laws must earn such broad support to survive the legislative process, they tend to endure, allowing ordinary people to plan their lives in ways they cannot when the rules shift from day to day. In all, the legislative process helps ensure each of us has a stake in the laws that govern us and in the Nation’s future. For some today, the weight of those virtues is apparent. For others, it may not seem so obvious. But if history is any guide, the tables will turn and the day will come when those disappointed by today’s result will appreciate the legislative process for the bulwark of liberty it is.
6-3 Called In Advance
Not only did I call 6-3 in advance by justice, I called it 6-3 before the Supreme Court oral arguments, for the correct reasons.
June 6, 2025: Reciprocal Tariffs Are Dead, but Trump Has 7 Other Options to Discuss
Trump Will Lose
One of my delusional readers said Trump would win this 9-0 in the Supreme Court.
There is almost no chance the Supreme Court will go along with such nonsense and it should be obvious why.
The three liberal judges will all be against Trump. I believe Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett are near-certain votes against Trump as well.
Justices John Roberts, Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett have all ruled against Trump at times.
So start with 3 certain and pick 2 more.
August 27, 2025: Can Trump’s Tariff Revenues Help Pay for the Federal Budget Deficit?
Hypothetical Vote Count
The three liberal justices are certain to vote against Trump. That means we need two more.
Pair 1: Barrett and Roberts
Pair 2: Barrett and Gorsuch
Pair 3: Gorsuch and RobertsIf I am correct, I think Barrett is already on board. I can’t help but think Roberts will go with the majority, and perhaps decide.
If it’s pair 2, add Roberts for a 6-3 decision. The bigger the majority, the more cover for all of them.
Note that those picks were in advance of the Appeals Court decision discussed below.
August 29, 2025: Full Appeals Court Rules 7-4 Against Trump’s Reciprocal Tariffs
In a very much expected (by me) ruling, the appeals court rejects Trump’s global tariffs.
Although his “success” will limited, Trump can and will do many more damaging actions.
In fact, he already has.
Trump Will Double Steel and Aluminum Tariffs to 50 Percent
On May 31, I commented Trump Will Double Steel and Aluminum Tariffs to 50 Percent
Insistent that US manufacturers who use steel will pay still more, especially the auto industry and small businesses, Trump Says Steel and Aluminum Tariffs Will Double to 50%.
Steel and aluminum tariffs are incredibly stupid. However, they are far more likely to stick because the Supreme Court may not want to buck trump on matters of national security.
Activist Court?
Trump moans about “activist courts”.
The problem is we have an over the top, arrogant, activist president who does not give a damn about the constitution.
Addendum
Comment to Mish: “Like the democrats, Mike, you are putting your personal (and selfish) agenda above the good of the country.”
My Reply: Like an fool who cannot think, you do not respect the Constitution.
It is that simple. I outlined the case 100% correctly, in advance, got a 7-4 ruling on that.The court even cited the case I mentioned of Biden’s student loans. If the court allowed this, then it should have allowed student loans. And who knows what Democrats will do if the President is always right.
I suggest you read the ruling, what I said in advance, and explain how it is “selfish” to respect the Constitution.
I have no selfish agenda in this. You have what is known as TWS. Trump Worship Syndrome and it has poisoned your mind.
November 16, 2025: What Are the Odds the Supreme Court Rules Against Trump on Tariffs?
The Supreme Court decision is not random. I discuss a framework.
What the Case Hinges On
- Major Questions
- Delegation of Powers
Importantly, this is not a for-against Trump vote. This is a serious set of issues. And there are three of them, not two that I mentioned above.
- Did Congress delegate tariffs to the Executive?
- Can Congress delegate tariffs to the Executive?
- IF yes to both of those, then does the amount create a major questions issue?
Gorsuch and Barrett strongly questioned Sauer on points 2 and 3.
Barrett also questioned Sauer on point 1.
Question 2 is a strong constitutional question. Gorsuch and Barrett both seemed firm with questions on how once delegated, could Congress ever get pack powers ceded to the executive.
In essence, the set of three questions above is about the integrity of the constitution and separation of powers. Gorsuch and Barrett are clearly very concerned.
Yet, even IF a majority is willing to side with Trump on points 1 and 2, Trump still needs to survive point 3, the major questions issue.
In summation, Trump needs to win on three of three issues (on two of three of Barrett, Roberts, and Gorsuch, while holding all of Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh).
So… here we are.
All the the legal experts with Trump Worship Syndrome were wrong, and I got it right for the right reasons, justice-by-justice.
If you want to call this Supreme Court an activist court, go ahead and make a fool of yourself.
Fearless Predictions, Ten Key Events to Expect in 2026
On January 1, 2026, I made Fearless Predictions, Ten Key Events to Expect in 2026
#1: Trump will Lose His Supreme Court Battle on Reciprocal Tariffs
Expect a 6-3 margin against Trump, possibly 7-2. I rate this a 75 percent chance.
Then If he loses, then there is about a 60 percent chance of at least some of the money will have to be refunded.
Trump will moan the SC is killing the best economy in history. He will also say that the ruling will have no impact at all. This is illogical of course, but seriously, expect both statements.
Trump will pursue other avenues of doing the same things with mixed success (using the word success in terms of what Trump wants, not what’s good for the country).
#2: Trump will Lose His Supreme Court Battle on Birthright Citizenship
Expect a 7-2 vote against Trump. 9-0 would not be a surprise.
I rate this a 90 percent chance.
#3: Trump will lose his Supreme Court battle over the right to fire Fed governor Lisa Cook.
Expect a 6-3 vote against Trump. I rate this a 80 percent chance.
#4: AI will have minimal impact in 2026
There will be some job losses. And some speculation fails. But don’t any extreme job losses or huge numbers of AI-related bankruptcies. Extreme events are unlikely.
I rate this an 75 percent chance.
#5: Tariffs Will Bite
Businesses that can will pass along more costs. In contrast to AI, we will see job losses mount.
Small business bankruptcies soar.
Trump will blame Biden, the Fed, and the Supreme Court for everything bad that happens.
I rate this an 80 percent chance.
#6: Republicans Lose the House
Voters do not believe we have best economy in history. And they will take it out on Republicans in the midterm elections.
It will be a low turnout affair as non-MAGA republicans show no enthusiasm to vote.
I rate this an 75 percent chance.
#7: Trump persuades Russia and Ukraine to accept a peace deal.
This will be Trump’s key accomplishment in 2026.
I rate this an 60 percent chance.
#8: Health Care makes the Fed’s life miserable.
Health care will add 1.5 to 2 percentage points to he PCE. And that’s the Fed’s preferred measure of inflation.
I rate this a 70 percent chance.
Unless the economy collapses everywhere else killing demand (and it could), the Fed will have a difficult time cutting rates.
Consumers are already upset over inflation. Health care will make 24 million people on Obamacare miserable.
#9: Finally a Recession
The Fed is concerned about job losses to the downside and inflation to the upside. I agree with the Fed on both scores.
AI will not be a savior for the economy. Nor will the Fed. The economic damage from tariffs and deportations will finally sink the economy.
I don’t have a strong conviction about recession. Call it 55 percent.
Right now we have a K-shaped economy propelled by AI spending and health care spending. The wealthy are propping up aggregate spending.
How much longer consumer spending stays robust depends on the stock market. I have no firm conviction. But as long as the stock market stays elevated, the wealthy will keep spending.
That said, I do have a strong conviction of the type of recession when it finally happens: Long and shallow, the opposite of Covid which was short and extremely deep.
The Fed will be constrained in action because of health care inflation, because a weak dollar adds to inflation, and because debt levels and rising debt pressures the dollar.
#10: The Unemployment Rate
The unemployment rate heads up to 5.5 percent. I rate this a 70 percent chance.
That’s less than a full percentage point rise from where we are.
5.5 percent unemployment is not a huge number. Demographics come into play. Retiring boomers keep the rise to a minimum.
This call is related to a long, mild recession but it can happen even in the absence of recession.
I am off to a good start.
Trump will lose in the courts on my #1, #2, and #3 picks.
It’s a great thing for America.
Thank you very much for your attention!
Very nicely done Mish, you definitely pay attention. It’s why many of us come here and stay here…
To the extent the case was about whether the IEEPA gave the president explicit authority to impose tariffs, I can respect this decision as I do most other Supreme Court decisions that have had high news exposure. The write-ups appropriately treated the tariffs as a tax on American individuals and businesses.
Case write-ups by the justices lend themselves to the thought processes. The ending of the Roberts write-up, presented here, seems to imply that Congress would do a better job with matters pertaining to the US economy including anything involving tariffs. I don’t agree with that at all. Congress hasn’t effectively addressed major problems.
I view many of Trump’s executive actions as gross violations of the powers delegated to the executive branch. As with Biden (e.g. attempts to forgive student loan repayments, opening up the border to create “legal” immigrants outside of the procedures laid down in the immigration laws). As with nearly all of our presidents since Truman in their pursuit of overseas military entanglements without the explicit permission of Congress.
In almost all cases of executive overreach, the Congress has been unable to act to approve or disapprove of the president’s action because of the use (or potential use) of the filibuster in the senate. Landmark pieces of legislature have only occurred during fleeting moments when the filibuster could be overridden. Those moments are too few, and their absence has badly distorted the relationship between the Congress and the Executive. The use of the filibuster has also improperly expanded the role of the Judiciary, which is often called on to step onto the playing field to restrain the president in situations where the founding fathers expected that the legislature would jealously guard its powers, and which is often tempted to create new law (as regards abortion, gay marriage and other hot button social issues) when Congress is effectively paralyzed.
anyone over the age 17, who took an AP class in high school or read a few history books, who has NOT figured out that the SCOTUS has always been just a 3rd branch of the legislature in pax dumbfuckistan, is fooling themselves. i find it quite comical at all the contortions lawyers and judges and lay people, go through, like it’s a game of twister. makes me LOL
Just call him “Mish the Greek”!
For educational purposes only, who do you like for the March Madness parlay?
The CBO analysis of the Big Beautiful Bill was predicated on revenue from these tariffs. Now that the tariffs are rescinded, does that mean passage of the Big Beautiful Bill needs to go under review? I would like to see the whole thing thrown out. It was the most fiscally irresponsible legislation passed in a long time.
PS Some of the bond market saw the ramifications of this immediately, hence the small rise in Treasury bond yields. When *everyone* begins to figure out what this means, as the next few weeks progress, the “markets” might have a Wile E. Coyote moment at some point.
Congrats. If you haven’t, I hope that when you’re wrong about a prediction that you write “xxxxx” (I was Wrong) . That way those of us who read your articles less than others know you’re being as honest as possible. Not just showing off.
My policy is to admit mistakes before someone admits them for you.
Anyone predicting anything is bound to make mistakes.
I have been wrong on recession calls. And admitted them.
Looking ahead – Fearless 2026 predictions
https://mishtalk.com/economics/fearless-predictions-ten-key-events-to-expect-in-2026/
I have noticed this, Mish. You are quite balanced. However, I find it had to be “balanced” when the Subject of a lot of what is going on, Trump himself, appears to be unbalanced or maybe even senile. I cannot tell. My relatives and two parents died of Alzheimer’s and I saw this recently with my wife’s Mom. She started sounding like Trump.
She died in Aug last year. But before that, all logic had gone. SO sad as she was, as her old self, a STOIC truth teller.
Cantor Fitzgerald (an investment bank run by Howard Lutnick’s sons) must be celebrating their windfalls from bets on tariff refund claims. I guess nothing wrong with that. But that Howard Lutnick couldn’t even persuade his own sons that the Trump tariffs were legal says a lot about the intellectual firepower behind those tariffs.
If Trump shot a random person on Fifth Avenue, Alito, Thomas and Kavanaugh would rule it was within the scope of Trump’s executive powers.
And there you go. That is TRUE. So far, two souls died at the hands of ICE and they BOTH looked very questionable and tipped into ILLEGALITIES. NOPE, nothing, no court orders, nothing.
Time to go to war with Iran and UFOs as reciprocal tariffs repelled, weak GDP print, labor market weakening, everybody in GOP fretting about losing House in November, credit card debt devastating lots of people, ICE surge ended bad, Board of Peace is not as big as intended, Greenland push didn’t work, Canada dissenting. Agreed, Mish did a good job on tariffs.
Recently I had seen supply chain issues that just shouldn’t be .. yet I concluded that large retailers were waiting for this decision lest they overpay for products, (with tariffs)and have to sell into a market where competitors had stock on hand from from running and now they’d be selling with a built in loss. I.e. they had run out of front-run inventory and needed the certainty of this decision complete with info on refunds (none)
Now that uncertainty is gone, I expect product movement can resume.
Just to keep you a bit humble, I would say prediction #7 is in serious trouble. It’s only 1 month and 20 days into the year, but there is very little sign of serious negotiations. Zelensky wants to keep fighting, and Europe doesn’t want the war to end. Russia is slowly winning, so why would they stop?
And I haven’t even gotten to the Lindsey Graham neo-con chickenhawk faction that has Trump’s ear.
Otherwise, your predictions look to be on track.
But it doesn t talks about the refunds.
Consumers are the ones that ultimately paid them, so there will be no refunds.
That’s ok though, we’ll have Elon to help rig the vote again:
https://newrepublic.com/post/206857/georgia-voter-fraud-elon-musk
Walk me through how that would be managed.
Could he pull a move like Musharraf did?
Like a banana republic?
what do you mean, LIKE a banana republic?
BMCC, you are very close. This admin is SO banana-like in how it is DOMINATING the entire narrative streams, with NO PUSH BACK. That is the mark of a Dictatorship along with sub-Bananas sounding as ludicrous as the main King character. TRUMPCO is stupid.
Congrats, Mish .. (I had it 7-2 with Kavanaugh, neutral, but siding with the majority)
In the 5 Nov 2025 SC testimony, Alito and Thomas suggested some end runs to continue the tariffs, if IEEPA failed. … Will the president double down or is his remaining political powder wet (completely underwater and soaked) ? …
(just listened to the ongoing president’s response to the SC decision special report … woowee … he’s doubling down …)
…and claiming foreign influence in the SC.
good call. It’s disappointing to see 3 Justices willing to go along with literally anything Trump does.
of course the POTUS doesn’t have authority to wily nilly impose tariffs in whatever amount he wants.
Well, Mish, congratulations on getting this one right. I wonder if Trump will be able to find a way around it. I seem to recall that some of FDR’s measures were later ruled invalid by the Supreme Court, but he is generally regarded as having established the system of governance that all of us (including those of us in the dependencies like Europe and Australia) have lived under ever since.
On another subject, because my posts are usually too late to get noticed, what do you have to say about the reports that Nick Shirley has uncovered election fraud in I think California? I am relying on a Zerohedge report.
“Nick Shirley has uncovered election fraud in I think California? I am relying on a Zerohedge report.”
I did not see that
In general I dismiss all such conspiratorial charges. Most have been debunked multiple times.
Here we are going over Georgia nonsense again.
300 voter registrations po box company, Mish. You should look into this. The assumption of voter fraud not existing is not passing the sniff test, even at the low level Shirley is reporting.
Here is your fraud.
https://newrepublic.com/post/206857/georgia-voter-fraud-elon-musk
With these guys the accusation is always the admission
He’s not interested in that.
Did they rule on refunds?
No
Great call!
What makes anyone think Trump will comply ? He already has a workaround that is legal.
The workaround is irrelevant. The current tariffs have been ruled illegal – FULL STOP. That means money needs to go back to whoever paid those tariffs.
Whatever workaround Trump has will restart whenever those get implemented assuming they too aren’t found illegal.
As for non-compliance, it’s more ammo for dems to impeach his ass.
50/50% the dems wimp out at the behest of Israel.
The court will order refunds and trump will comply. It’s that simple.
Will it? Not sure it will do that as they probably want to wash their hands of the affair now.
I imagine you’ll have to individually sue to get any tariff money back and have receipts and wait a long time.
not a shot in hell that is gonna happen before the currency amount they sue for is worth a fraction of what they “might” get in another 10 years if ever.
Did the Supremes mandate refunds?
They didn’t and won’t.
I was hoping you were right on this Mish,and you were…
So it turns out that the Separation of Powers we learned and have known since grade school are a real thing – who woulda thunk?
Don’t count your chickens… the other two branches don’t have armies.
so many people are so naive with no grounding in history of what has happened in past 250 years in usa. trump is in a long line of executives and commander in chiefs that do what they want. the list is just too long. lincoln was probably the most egregious. FDR up there. wilson and ike and for sure CIA daddy bush and 9.11.01 the inside job. how do you think howie lutnick didn’t go to work that morning.
The entire upper management of Cantor did not go to work that day…
However the minions took the ride to the ground.
Now that the tariff issue has been decided basically stating that congress has the power to tax, it is time for someone with standing to file a suit against the Fed for redefining stable prices as mandated by congress to 2% inflation.
zero chance of that
For sure the Republicans will lose Senate and House if Trump attacks Iran all for Israel’s sake. The Israeli NGO’s control American politicians with the exception of a few like Tom Massie from Kentucky whom Trump is trying to replace in midterms. I believe the Israeli Mossad has information on Trump concerning his Epstein relationship and it’s not good. Trump is being blackmailed by Israel. This is my opinion. If Trump attacks Iran and the Republicans get trounced midterms then expect the Republicans threaten to impeach Trump unless he lets Vance take over. and Trump will claim health issues. Already, a few months ago, Vance stated he could take over Trump has health issues. Unusual thing to say.
The next couple weeks, possibly this weekend, will define the rest of Trump’s presidency.
>> For sure the Republicans will lose
This doesn’t matter to trump. Or to TPTB that control the flaps of the republican wing of the unibody uniparty.
If Vance takes over as titular president would Jared Kushner retain his role as actual president?
Depend on whether Vance has the same capacity as Trump for getting an arm up there to sock puppet him.
Replacing Trump with Vance is like shitting in your pants and changing your shirt to get rid of the stench.
Now that we can import directly from China bypassing Trump middlemans, trade deficit is foing to drop big time.
What the hell are you smoking?
Not sure, but I would like to try it.
panama red………remember the song, too. new riders of the purple sage
That was a beautifully written concurrence by Justice Gorsuch. Plain language.
This Administration has blown so much taxpayer money on wild goose initiatives.
Americans elected a very expensive President.
Emily Litella would chime in:
“What’s all this I hear about a lack of a hysterical president?
Oh, a lack of historical precedent…
That’s different.
Never mind.”
Here’s hoping this is the start of SCOTUS doing something at all to reign the mad king in from destroying everyone’s pocketbooks. Took them long enough, but I think that was partially to let Trump hurt himself with the fallout.
I think it is important to look at why the three Trumpers dissented from an obvious case of executive overreach
Because they’re suckers of totalitarian unitary executive cock.
Bravo! Mr Shedlock and thank you!
This is why Mish has been worth reading since Ritholtz’s The Big Picture.
Come for the economic analysis. Stay for the legal opinion.
There are major constitutional problems that have developed now that Congress is no longer a deliberative body but rather has become a parliament. Give us strength if the socialist party wins a parliamentary majority in the mid-terms.
That said, the Executive still has extraordinary powers as Congress has delegated most of its responsibility to the regulatory agencies. The President can easily impose most of the more important tariffs via Section 301 or Section 232. He just needs to go through a process. This is how he imposed the steel and aluminum tariffs. Its also what the Obama and Biden administrations did to impose all of their “climate change” stuff. The process is completely controlled by the Executive and can impose pretty much any regulation that the Executive Branch wants.
So the most important tariffs (those on China) can be imposed via regulations, and Congress can do basically nothing to stop it as long as the Republicans hold one chamber.
So I agree with you Mish. The Supremes were correct that the Executive cannot impose a random tax, but the Administration has more than one way to get what it wants.
Thanks
Not as easy as you think.
I discussed this before – will repost
if you do NOT think the Repugs and Trump are socialist as hell, i have a little bridge in my old village of kings county, NYC>. laughable. they are pure unadalterated national socialists workers party with storm troopers and industrialists(tech bro billionaires) at the trough for free government cheese. just like all socialists both right wing and left wings always are. thanks for the sophomoric analysis and chuckle. we need it.
I don’t see this as a left wing, socialist, or nationalist (not “USA”, anyway) or pro-worker. This is oligarchy, kleptocracy, kakistocracy, fascism, etc. and, yes, all those need at least some lip service to fool the rubes. Trump is pissing on everyone including his idiot faithful, even as they lap it up.
fascism is corporatism. it’s socialism turned on it’s head. per mussolini. socialize the profits for the C suites and naitonalize the losses for the middlebrows and lumpenproles. it is what mussolini started. usa is doing it, today. it is a form of socialism. the right wing style is what most folks would call it. it is also a kleptocracy due to the world wide imperial trillions being spent that never gets audited……..the pentagon and MICC
Okay. So, we agree on a lot. But, IMO…
The oligarchs discourage people from using the word “oligarchy” (because to name it that way implies you can’t solve the problems without taking away their enormous power — wealth) and encourage people to use the term “socialism for the rich” and then shorten it to “socialism” because oligarchs use every chance to smear socialism or communism.
“Socialism”, in practice, implies very high progressive tax rates as a necessary force to counteract the tendency for wealth to concentrate into so few hands. As in Scandinavian countries or in USA for a few decades. Because the politicians in the (non-) Democratic party protect the wealthy and avoid restoring those progressive rates, I don’t consider them “socialist”.
He got everything he wanted.
How about chucking the tariffs and instead, putting a 1% transaction tax on every stock share traded? National debt would disappear overnight.
Tacos billionaire friends wouldn’t like that lol
My guess is that a lot of the trading would dry up. This sort of idea comes up pretty frequently in the form of a “debit tax” (on all transactions) or a tax on foreign exchange transactions. It sounds too good to be true, and I think it is.
You first. Let us know how your 401k does after you voluntarily pay this tax and show how effective it is.
Volatility would skyrocket.
Since stocks are priced on the margin, and trading volume would plunge, you’d see bid-ask spreads widen, and bigger swings in price.
You’d get far less revenue than you expect.
Great news! The only wonder for me is- why wasn’t this a unanimous decision? Good call Mish.
You did tell us. Trump is getting ready to pull another trick out of his hat.
What i noticed about his last term. Lot of pushing legal boundary’s. Lots of drama lots of lawyer expenses and min results or neg results.
Work for a guy like trump once.
Hes got to keep an ever increasing amount of juggling balls in the air so the audience wont notice the ones he drops.
Your not going to pay attention hes trying to destroy his classified doc files / fbi :erase jan 6 files/ and changing presidential social media post to need a freedom of info request.
Around 2016, either “Hedgeless Horseman” or “Cognitive Dissonance”, some of the few good commenters on Zerohedge (mostly trash the past 10 years IMHO), relayed a story they heard about Trump practicing his golf drives from a home balcony and aiming at his neighbor’s house because Trump hated his neighbor. “Be warned” that it’s representative. Uh, yeah.
Not sure which house that could have been. Definitely not Mar A Largo because he couldn’t hit it far enough to get off the estate property.
Dont worry, it isn’t just *your* opinion. (Hat tip to CD.)
Web-based comments sections build to a peak then degrade significantly over time as those who add value cease their activity and are usually replaced by bots or low-brow posters who hop from forum to forum contributing inflammatory statements and do not post comments with depth or substance.
Who’s gonna pay for the huge Big Ugly Bill now then? Debt will explode & so will yields. The Grifter in chief is a walking disaster, that’s all before a stupid attack on Iran which will sink him & the US dragging down the world economy….. This idiot can start the collapse in a few hours…
Same as before – the citizenry.
As always Mike, great job, and forecasting !
Well deserved victory lap
didn’t majority of legal analysts say the same thing? pro tip : SCOTUS is just 3rd wing of legislators. has been for centuries
GFY troll
Trump has a plan B,C, and D waiting in the wings. Careful what you wish for as Trump will get his way in a way that might be harder to swallow.
This article lays out his options now. They all involve planning, deliberation and organization, and will test an administration that is nearly devoid of competent players, facing increasingly skeptical lawmakers, and deeply underwater in public opinion.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-02-20/trump-s-tariffs-ruled-illegal-by-supreme-court-what-are-his-options-now
Perhaps start a war to enable certain workarounds? Looks likely.
It’s only wartime if Congress declares war. It’s been 85 years since that’s happened.
The Grifter in Chief never gets his way, that’s why they call him Tacho.
Care to describe B, C and D and their constitutionality?
I wonder how Dementia Donnie’s supporters are going to spin this as a win?
When the Tramp doubles down in lawlessness.
Predictably, that’s exactly what the PEDOTUS did!
Blame it on biden and liberal courts. Dont forget that money is already spent to support farmers
Thanks for posting.
I like how you say “… I rate this a 70 percent chance.”. That is the kind of prediction a skilled predictor might make.