SUPREME COURT TARIFF DECISION
PUTTING THE BULLSHIT BACK INTO THE BULL
How Trump Learned to Lose at His Own Court
It was a sad sight today—sadder than a MAGA hat at a Whole Foods—watching Donald Trump meltdown over the Supreme Court's 6-3 decision to strike down his holy tariff crusade. You'd think after decades of practice, Trump would have gotten better at losing. But no. Like a toddler whose juice box was confiscated by the Constitution, he moaned, he groaned, and he stomped his little foot at the majority decision with all the dignity of a man who just discovered his spray tan was recalled.
The former—and somehow current—president took particular aim at the conservative justices he personally appointed, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, who had the audacity to join Chief Justice John Roberts and the three liberal justices in ruling that, shockingly, the President of the United States cannot just make up taxes whenever he feels like it. Apparently, someone forgot to tell Trump that "checks and balances" isn't just the name of his accountant's least favorite filing system.
The Loyalty Test: A Supreme Disappointment
Trump labeled the six-justice majority "disloyal," "unpatriotic," and—in a particularly rich moment of projection—accused them of being "lap dogs for the RINOs and the radical left Democrats." This is the same man who once said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not lose voters, but apparently, reading the Constitution is where his justices draw the line.
In contrast, Trump heaped praise upon his "loyal" dissenters: Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh. He called them patriots with "courage" and promised Kavanaugh a celebratory six-pack of beer—because nothing says "judicial independence" like a frat house reward system. One can only imagine Thomas is getting a luxury RV upgrade and Alito a lifetime supply of upside-down flags.
The Legal Smackdown: When "Regulate" Doesn't Mean "Tax"
Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, delivered what legal scholars are already calling the "modern Youngstown"—a landmark rebuke of executive overreach. The Court ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977, which allows the president to "regulate" commerce during emergencies, does not grant him the power to unilaterally impose hundreds of billions of dollars in tariffs.
Why? Because—and this is apparently news to Trump—tariffs are taxes. And under that dusty old document called the Constitution, only Congress has the power to tax. As Roberts dryly noted, if Congress wanted to hand the president a blank check to rewrite the nation's tax code, it would have said so. Instead, it said "regulate," which, shockingly, does not mean "do whatever you want."
The decision invoked the "Major Questions Doctrine," which essentially says: if you want to do something with "vast economic and political significance" (like imposing a $200 billion tax), you need clear authorization from Congress, not a vague 50-year-old law you found in the back of the legislative filing cabinet.
The Dissent: A Love Letter to Executive Power
Justice Kavanaugh authored a 63-page dissent that read like a heartfelt defense of presidential authoritarianism. He argued that "regulating" commerce has historically included the power to set tariffs, that the president needs "flexibility" in foreign affairs, and that striking down the tariffs would create "Treasury chaos."
To which Roberts essentially replied: "Not our problem." The Court's job, he wrote, is to interpret the law as written, not to uphold an illegal tax just because paying it back would be "messy." In other words: You broke it, you bought it—and now you have to give refunds.
The Fallout: A $140 Billion Question Mark
And oh, what a mess it is. The ruling invalidates Trump's "reciprocal" tariffs (ranging from 10% to 50%) on nearly all trading partners, potentially requiring the government to refund an estimated $140 billion to $200 billion already collected. The Court punted the refund process back to the lower courts, which means importers are in for months—possibly years—of litigation.
Trump, naturally, has vowed to fight the refunds "tooth and nail," arguing the money is "the people's money" (a phrase he's never applied to his own tax returns). Legal experts predict a "fiscal and administrative nightmare," which is basically the Trump presidency's epithet at this point.
The Backup Plan: Same Bullshit, Different Statute
But Trump wouldn't be Trump if he didn't have a Plan B—or in this case, Plan BS. Within hours of the ruling, he announced he would impose a new 10% global tariff using Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, a law designed for temporary balance-of-payments emergencies.
The catch? Section 122 tariffs expire automatically after 150 days (July 20, 2026) and can only be extended with an act of Congress. Given that this would essentially be asking lawmakers to vote for a national sales tax three months before the midterm elections, the odds of extension are somewhere between "snowball's chance in hell" and "Trump admitting he lost in 2020."
Legal experts warn that if Trump tries to "daisy-chain" these 150-day periods by restarting the clock every five months, he'll be sued faster than you can say "constitutional crisis"—and today's 6-3 majority has already shown it has zero patience for such shenanigans.
Market Reaction: The Relief Rally That Wasn't
Wall Street initially celebrated the ruling with a "relief rally," as retail and tech stocks surged on hopes of lower import costs. But the party ended quickly when Trump announced his backup tariff plan, reminding investors that uncertainty—the market's least favorite flavor—is still very much on the menu.
The S&P 500 and Nasdaq gave back most of their gains, the dollar dipped, and Bitcoin rose 2% as traders hedged against the fiscal chaos of potential refunds. Companies like Hasbro and Mattel briefly soared, only to settle back down when they realized the trade war isn't over—it's just been rebooted with a weaker legal foundation and a ticking clock.
The Bigger Picture: A Landmark Rebuke
Today's ruling is more than just a loss for Trump—it's a seismic shift in the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches. For decades, presidents have enjoyed broad deference on trade and foreign policy. But the Roberts Court has now made clear: even in emergencies, even in foreign affairs, the "Power of the Purse" belongs to Congress, and no amount of foot-stomping will change that.
Legal scholars are already comparing this case to Youngstown (1952), West Virginia v. EPA (2022), and Biden v. Nebraska (2023)—a string of rulings that collectively say: Presidents are not kings, agencies are not legislatures, and "emergency" is not a magic word that makes the Constitution disappear.
Conclusion: The Art of the Tantrum
So here we are: Trump has lost at his own Supreme Court, with his own appointees, using his own "emergency" powers. He's replaced his struck-down tariffs with a weaker version that expires in five months. He's facing a potential $200 billion refund bill. And he's promised Kavanaugh a six-pack.
You'd think after so much practice, Trump would be better at losing. But as today proved, some people never learn. They just get louder (and older).
And that, dear readers, is how you put the bullshit back into the bull.
The Supreme Court has spoken. The tariffs are toast. And somewhere, the Founding Fathers are having a drink—probably something classier than whatever Kavanaugh's getting.
