Supreme Court limits presidential tariff power
The Supreme Court rejected President Trump’s use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose broad emergency tariffs. The court said the president must point to clear congressional authorization for extraordinary assertions of tariff power; the IEEPA authorizes import regulation and sanctions but does not explicitly permit tariffs. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion; three conservatives and three liberals joined. Dissenters, led by Justice Kavanaugh, argued the law’s power to prohibit imports implies some authority to impose tariffs and pointed to other statutes the president could use, albeit with procedural limits. The ruling prevents the White House from using the IEEPA as an open-ended vehicle for market-rattling, unilateral tariff announcements.
Trump reaction and legal fallout
President Trump called the decision politically motivated and criticized the justices who ruled against him, including two of his own appointees. He said he would pursue other authorities to pursue trade measures. Analysts note those alternatives require investigatory steps, time limits and caps (for example, a 10% cap on some tariffs and a five-month limit unless Congress approves), limiting the ability to impose indefinite, high-level tariffs instantly. Refund litigation is expected: businesses that paid the now-reversed emergency tariffs may seek refunds; litigants who brought suits — small businesses that claimed they were taxed illegally — likely will obtain refunds in lower courts.
Lawyers and legal context
Former federal judge and lead lawyer Michael McConnell, who argued against the tariffs, said the IEEPA was designed for sanctions against foreign actors and had never been used to tax U.S. importers. He described the decision as grounded in constitutional separation of powers — Congress, not the president, has primary authority over revenue-raising measures such as tariffs (Article I, House origination). McConnell and others expect this to be a lasting check on asserted executive authority.
White House and political response
White House correspondents reported the president intended to press on with other trade authorities and may seek support from Congress. Republican legislators are divided: some may be inclined to back codifying tariff policy, while others are protectionist-turned-skeptical about expansive tariffs because of their effects on consumers and farmers. Political calculation ahead of midterms means tariffs and immigration will remain central issues.
Interviews and analysis
Jan Crawford (Supreme Court reporter) — explained that the majority opinion found the emergency statute didn’t authorize tariffs; liberals and conservatives in the majority reached that conclusion for different reasons. The dissent argued the statute’s grant of import-regulation powers could include tariffs.
Willie James Inman (White House correspondent) — noted that tariffs were central to the president’s economic and foreign-policy toolkit: they had been used as leverage in international negotiations. With the ruling, tariffs will be narrower, more investigatory and less subject to immediate social-media announcements.
Elliot Ackerman (former military/CIA, CBS contributor) — discussed U.S.–Iran tensions and build-ups in the Middle East. He described a period of brinkmanship and a risk that deployed assets create momentum toward use. He said Iran’s survival concerns and regional partners’ reluctance to join a large strike make outcomes uncertain.
Gov. Kevin Stitt (Oklahoma, GOP, NGA chair) — spoke about tariffs bringing manufacturing back to Oklahoma (an aluminum smelter) and said governors support reshoring jobs. He criticized federal National Guard deployments to other states without governors’ consent, arguing for state authority. On immigration, he called for secure borders and suggested giving governors more authority in workforce and immigration enforcement policy at the state level.
Michael McConnell (former judge, argued case) — called the ruling a defense of constitutional limits on the executive and argued the IEEPA historically handled sanctions and asset freezes, not taxation on Americans. He said litigants who sought refunds were likely to receive them. He described this as limiting a president who tried to claim broad powers without clear congressional authorization.
Elliot Ackerman (on Iran) — assessed the situation as negotiations and brinkmanship, with priorities including nuclear restrictions, ballistic missiles and proxy support. He noted partners’ reluctance to join a full-scale strike against Iran given regional instability.
Policy and politics
Steve Hayes (editor, The Dispatch) — said the White House had likely prepared alternatives but that getting congressional codification would force Republicans to vote and cause internal splits. The tariff issue has populist appeal for Trump’s base, even as many economists and some Republican lawmakers worry about consumer price effects and impacts on agriculture.
Refunds and next legal steps
Tariffs struck down by the Supreme Court will be subject to refund litigation. The five small businesses that brought the case sought immediate refunds; other importers may file for refunds through the Court of International Trade. Some refunds can be processed directly; others may result in additional litigation.
Olympics update: Men’s hockey
The U.S. men’s hockey team advanced to the Olympic gold-medal game after a dominant semifinal (6–2 over Slovakia). Team USA now faces Canada in the final; the U.S. has not won men’s Olympic hockey gold since 1980 (“Miracle on Ice”). Coverage noted celebration rituals (e.g., “Free Bird” in the arena) and strong U.S. momentum.
Elections and primaries: Texas contest
Early voting in Texas included high-profile Democratic primaries. Congresswoman Julie Johnson defended her record and endorsements while facing a primary challenge from former Rep. Colin Allred (who had entered after dropping a Senate bid). Johnson emphasized constitutional limits and criticized what she called ICE’s unconstitutional behavior; she said she would remain in the district on State of the Union night to work with voters.
Other policy updates
Discussion covered the Department of Homeland Security funding standoff and whether DHS employees might face pay impacts during budget disputes. Johnson argued Democrats will not fund DHS until they see reforms ensuring constitutional policing, particularly for immigration enforcement.
Sports and culture
Kelly Ou’Grady reported from Milan on the Winter Olympics: Team USA men’s hockey reached the gold-medal game against Canada; figure skater Alysa Liu won and shared reflections on confidence and growth.
Closing
“Takeout” host Major Garrett framed the topics — a major Supreme Court check on executive tariff power, looming political and economic fallout, international security concerns in the Middle East, state-level clashes over federal authority, primary season dynamics in Texas, and Olympic drama — as central issues shaping both policy and politics going into the midterms.