November 5, 2025 – Supreme Court Justices Grill Trump’s Tariff Authority in Oral Arguments

In Email/Dossier/Govt Corruption Investigations, Featured Timeline Entries by Katie Weddington

HERE WE GO!!!

🚨 Supreme Court Justices Grill Trump’s Tariff Authority in Oral Arguments

Given what I just heard and following this case, I believe The Supreme Court is LIKELY to UPHOLD the President’s authority to impose tariffs.

🔻 Breakdown:

– Justice Kavanaugh questions the “odd donut hole” in the statute: why the President can shut down all trade or impose quotas with every country but not a 1% tariff, arguing it lacks common sense.

– Benjamin Gutman argues tariffs are a fundamentally different power—akin to taxation for revenue—while the statute authorizes controlling or freezing trade, like embargoes, not revenue-raising measures.

– Gutman emphasizes context matters; no other federal statute uses “regulate” to authorize tariffs or taxes, and tariffs fall under commerce power, not taxation, citing historical figures like John Marshall and Joseph Story.

– Justice Barrett notes the interpretation allows embargoes on global trade but bars minor tariffs, probing if tariffs undermine the statute’s goal of controlling transactions during emergencies.

– Gutman clarifies embargoes ensure hard limits (e.g., no more than 1,000 units imported), while tariffs only add costs without guaranteeing control, potentially allowing trade to continue.

– Justice Jackson challenges why blocking all trade isn’t a bigger deal than a small tariff, and questions reliance on the Algonquin case, which was statutory interpretation, not constitutional.

– Gutman responds that Algonquin looked at text, context, and legislative history, suggesting Congress intended emergency powers for stopping trade, not revenue generation.

– Justices discuss framers’ concerns: revenue-raising powers were core to Article I, posing different risks than trade controls, and tariffs might create incentives misaligned with emergency goals.

🔻Overall Lean of SCOTUS Judges:

Remember, this is a bite sized morsel of the entire argument.

– Conservative Justices (e.g., Kavanaugh, possibly Alito based on related reports) appear more open to the administration’s interpretation, questioning the limitations on presidential tariff authority and expressing concern about removing it from the “suite of tools” for economic emergencies.

– Liberal Justices (e.g., Jackson, possibly others) seem to be probing the breadth of presidential power, potentially leaning towards a narrower interpretation that aligns with historical and constitutional concerns about revenue-raising authorities.

🔻 My Educated Guess on the Decision:

Given the current composition of the Supreme Court and the oral arguments, it is likely that the majority WILL SIDE with the administration, upholding the President’s authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

The conservative majority, particularly Kavanaugh and possibly Alito, seem concerned about limiting presidential tools in economic emergencies, and the historical and contextual arguments presented by Gutman may resonate with them.

However, the end decision might be narrow, focusing on the specific statutory interpretation rather than broadly expanding presidential power, to garner a majority that includes some swing votes like Chief Justice Roberts or Justice Barrett.

🔻 When to Expect an Answer?

Given that oral arguments occurred on today, we can expect a decision sometime between late May and early July 2026, likely closer to June 2026, as is customary for major cases. May even be earlier given the importance.

I’m feeling very good about this. Don’t pay attention to the doom and gloomers. This is destiny!

Howard Lutnick: KABOOM 💥

President Trump will WIN the SCOTUS Tariff Case and the economy will go 🆙🆙🆙!

If by chance SCOUTS rules against him, “there’s something called section 232 which is also about tariffs, so there are plenty of tariff rules that the President has no matter what. The answer is, these judges are going to side with Donald Trump.”