“On Friday, the Supreme Court struck down sweeping tariffs that President Trump had imposed globally. Trump had claimed authority under a 1977 law, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). But the IEEPA did not mention tariffs and, in a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that Trump exceeded his authority. Trump, in a fit of pique, immediately announced that he was imposing a new 10% global tariff, citing Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. The next day, Trump raised the tariff to 15%. Several prominent outlets falsely reported that the Trade Act gives Trump the legal authority to impose temporary tariffs of up to 15% in response to trade deficits …. Section 122 of the Trade Act gives the president the authority to temporarily impose tariffs in response to ‘large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits,’ not trade deficits. The United States does not have a balance-of-payments deficit, much less a large and serious one.” (02/24/26)
“The Supreme Court’s decision in Learning Resources v. Trump will have immediate political effects, substantial economic effects, and more subtle but long-run effects on the shape of the law. Doctrinally, its significance may seem limited because the opinions fracture on nearly everything beyond a single issue under a specific statute — the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Six members of the Court agreed only that IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs. Even on that conclusion, however, the justices split into two camps: one relied on the major questions doctrine, namely that because of the extraordinary power claimed, Congress had to speak more clearly than it did, while the other concluded the president’s lack of authority was manifest without reliance on any clear-statement rule. Nevertheless, the case is still significant for the separation of powers.” (02/24/26)
“Trump administration officials are trying to put a brave face on the stinging rebuke just delivered by the Supreme Court in its ruling that most of the tariffs imposed since April 2025 (the IEEPA tariffs) are illegal. Never one to accept limitations on his power, Trump rushed to impose new tariffs using an obscure clause, Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act. Section 122 tariffs have a 150-day limit, at which point they expire. So Trump officials are now claiming that they’ll find ways to reconstruct the tariffs using other legal loopholes before the expiration date is reached. I don’t know how well this strategy will actually work. To the extent that it does work, we will be in the grip of zombie tariffs — tariffs that should be dead, because they were clearly imposed illegally, but that somehow keep shambling along.” (02/24/26)
“When the U.S. government makes a representation in federal court, it is not a talking point. It is a commitment. In the landmark tariff litigation decided by the Supreme Court on Friday, that commitment was explicit: to give refunds if President Donald Trump’s tariffs were declared illegal. … At several points along the way, government lawyers assured judges that there would be no ‘harm’ in allowing tariff collection to continue during the appeal process because duties later invalidated could be refunded — with interest. Businesses would be made whole. Indeed, after I argued the case before the Supreme Court on Nov. 5, the government doubled down on that promise in filings in lower court. … Now the Supreme Court has ruled, and the tariffs have been invalidated. Yet Trump and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent are suggesting that refunds could take years, entangled in further litigation and administrative delay.” (02/24/26)
“Often derided as worthless or a fast track to a lower income, the humanities promote the kind of critical thinking that’s needed even in an AI world.” (02/24/26)
“A Utah judge on Tuesday declined to disqualify the local county attorney’s office from prosecuting the accused shooter in Charlie Kirk’s killing after the defense argued there was a conflict of interest because a prosecutor’s daughter was present when Kirk was shot. Prosecutors plan to seek the death penalty against Tyler Robinson, 22, who is charged with aggravated murder in the Sept. 10 shooting of the conservative activist on the Utah Valley University campus in Orem. Robinson has not yet entered a plea.” (02/24/26)
