Read the full article on KETV 7
Supreme Court strikes down sweeping tariffs; President Trump to enact 10% global tariff in response
Wow, that’s *** lot of people. That’s *** new record. We set *** record every time. Well, thank you very much for being here. The Supreme Court’s ruling on tariffs is deeply disappointing. And I’m ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country. I’d like to thank and congratulate Justices Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh for their strength and wisdom. and love of our country. Which is right now very proud of those justices. When you read the dissenting opinions, there’s no way that anyone can argue against them. There’s no way. Foreign countries that have been ripping us off for years are ecstatic. They’re so happy. And they’re dancing in the streets, but they won’t be dancing for long, that I can assure you. The Democrats on the court. are thrilled, but they will automatically vote no. They’re an automatic no, just like in Congress, they’re an automatic no. They’re against anything that makes America strong, healthy. And great again. They also are *** frankly disgrace to our nation, those justices. They’re an automatic no no matter how good *** case you have, it’s *** no. But you can’t knock their loyalty. It’s one thing you can do with some of our people. Others think they’re being politically correct, which has happened before far too often with certain members of this court. And it’s happened so often with this court, what *** shame, having to do with voting in particular, when in fact they’re just being fools and lapdogs for the RINOs and the radical left Democrats and not that they should have anything at all to do with it. They’re very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution. It’s my opinion that the court has been swayed by foreign interests and *** political movement that is far smaller than. People would ever think. It’s *** small movement. I won by millions of votes. We won in *** landslide. With all the cheating that went on, there was *** lot of it, but we still won in *** landslide, too big to rig. But these people are obnoxious, ignorant, and loud. They’re very loud, and I think certain justices are afraid of that. They don’t want to do the right thing. They’re afraid of it. This was an important case to me, more as *** symbol of economic national security. And also, I would say. Just for our country itself, so important. Because we’re doing so well as *** country, we’ve never done so well. The good news is that there are methods, practices, statutes, and authorities as recognized by the entire court in this terrible decision. And also is recognized by Congress, which they refer to that are even stronger than the IEPA tariffs available to me as President of the United States and in actuality I was very modest in my ask of other countries and businesses because I wanted. To do, and it’s very important. I want to be very well behaved because I wanted to do anything. I didn’t want to do anything that would affect the decision of the court because I understand the court. I understand how they are very easily swayed. I want to be *** good boy. I have very effectively utilized tariffs over the past year to make America great again. Our stock market has just recently broken 50,000 on the Dow and simultaneously and even more amazingly broken 70, broken 7000 on the S&P, two numbers that everybody thought upon our landslide election victory could not be attained. Think of that. Nobody thought it was possible to do it within 4 years, and we did it in 1 year. They said, you’ll never be able, you’ll go back and you read the geniuses read their statements, all of the Nobel Prize winners. In economics, they said no you couldn’t do it in 4 years. Well, we didn’t do it in 4 years, we did it in 1 year. We broke every record in the book and we’re continuing to do so. Tariffs have likewise been used to end 5 of the 8 wars that I settled. I settled 8 wars, whether you like it or not, including India, Pakistan, big ones, nuclear, could have been nuclear. Prime Minister of Pakistan said yesterday at the great meeting that we had, the peace board, he said yesterday that President Trump could have saved 35 million lives by getting us to stop fighting. They were getting ready to do some bad things, but they’ve given us great national security, these tariffs have, and together with our strong borders reduced fentanyl coming into our country by 30%. When I use them as *** penalty against countries illegally sending this poison. Into our country to poison our youth. All of those tariffs remain. They all remain. I don’t know if you know that or not. They all remain. We’re still getting them, and we will after the decision. I guess there’s nobody left to appeal to. But again, those three people, such respect. I’ve had *** lot of respect for them anyway, but such great respect. But other alternatives will now be used to replace the ones that the court incorrectly rejected. We have alternatives, great alternatives. Could be more money, we will take in more money. And we’ll be *** lot stronger for it. We’re taking in hundreds of billions of dollars. We’ll continue to do so. To show you how ridiculous the opinion is, however, the court said that I’m not allowed to charge even $1. I can’t charge $1. Can’t charge *** dollar. I would have used 1 penny, but we don’t make the pennies anymore. We save money. Can’t charge $1 to any country under IEPA, not $1 I assume to protect other countries. This must have been done to protect those other countries, certainly not the United States of America. Which they should be interested in protecting. That’s what they’re supposed to be protecting. But I am allowed to cut off any and all trade or business with that same country. In other words, I can destroy the trade. I can destroy the country. I’m even allowed to impose *** foreign country destroying embargo. I can embargo. I can do anything I want, but I can’t charge $1 because that’s not what it says, and that’s not the way it even reads. I can do anything I want to do to them, but I can’t judge. Any money, so I’m allowed to destroy the country, but I can’t charge them *** little fee. I could give them *** little 22 cents fee, but I cannot charge under any circumstances. I cannot charge them anything. Think of that. How ridiculous is that? I’m allowed to embargo them. I’m allowed to tell them you can’t do business in the United States anymore. We want you out of here. But if I want to charge them $10 I can’t do that. It’s incorrect. Their decision is incorrect, but it doesn’t matter because We have very powerful alternatives that have been approved by this decision. You know, they’ve been approved by the decision for those that thought they had us. And they’re saying that I have the absolute right to license, but not the right to charge *** license fee. So think of that. I have the right to license, it’s *** very powerful word in many ways license is more powerful than tariffs. In fact, I was thinking about using it. But they came up with the idea that I can license just like the people that were opposing me told them to do, but not the right to charge *** license fee. Think of that. Who ever heard of such *** thing? What license has ever been issued without the right to charge *** fee? You get *** license, you charge *** fee. It’s automatic, but not with this court. But now the court has given me the unquestioned right to ban all sorts of things from coming into our country, to destroy foreign countries. But *** much more powerful right than many people ever thought we even had, but not the right to charge *** fee. How crazy is that? Our country is the hottest country anywhere in the world right now, and it was *** dead country 1.5 years ago under an incompetent president, but now I’m going to go in *** different direction, probably the direction that I should have gone the first time, but I read the language. I’m very good at reading language, and it read our way 100%, but now I’ll go the way I could have gone originally, which is even stronger than our original choice. As Justice Kavanaugh, who stuck his gun, so you have to see, I’m so proud of him, wrote in his dissent, Although I firmly disagree with the court’s holding today, the decision might not substantially constrain *** president’s ability to order tariffs going forward. So I think of that. The decision might not substantially constrain, and it doesn’t. He’s right. In fact, I can charge much more than I was charging. So I’m going to just start. Although I firmly disagree with the court’s holding today, the decision might not substantially. Constrain *** president’s ability to order tariffs going forward. That’s because numerous other federal statutes, which is so true, authorize the president to impose tariffs and might justify most, if not all, of the tariffs issued in this case, even more tariffs actually. Those statutes include. Think of that. Those statutes include, for example, the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, Section 232, all of these things I know so well, the Trade Act of 1974, Sections 122, 201301. And the Tariff Act of 1930, Section 338, all clear, but it’s *** little bit longer process. I thought I’d make things simple, but they didn’t let us do that. I would like to thank Justice Kavanaugh for his, frankly, his genius and his. His great ability, very proud of. That appointment in actuality, while, while I am sure that they did not mean to do so, the Supreme Court’s decision today made *** president’s ability to both regulate trade and impose tariffs more powerful and more crystal clear rather than less. I don’t think they meant that. I’m sure they didn’t. It’s terrible and to think. That the Democrats who oppose this only because they want to go the opposite way. They’d like to pack the court. They want to put on 21 people. They want to pack the court, pack the Supreme Court, maybe they should do it. Maybe they would be better off if they did it. They want to pack the court. They want to do anything to hurt our country. There will no longer be any doubt, and the income coming in and the protection of our companies and country will actually increase because of this decision. I don’t think the court meant that, but it’s the way it is. Based on long-standing law and hundreds of victories, and even as I was pointed out before, even thousands of victories over the years, to the contrary, the Supreme Court did not overrule tariffs. They merely overruled *** particular use of IEPA tariffs. And essentially it’s to use to get *** fee. I can do anything I want with AEPA, anything. I just can’t judge anybody for it. I can license. I just can’t charge them. It’s ridiculous, but it’s OK because we have. Other ways, numerous other ways, the ability to block, embargo, restrict, license, or impose any other condition on *** foreign country’s ability to conduct trade with the United States under IEPA. has been fully confirmed by this decision. So now there’s no doubt because you know there were *** lot of questions about tariffs because no president was smart enough to use them to protect our country from those countries and businesses that were ripping us off. You took *** look at the deficits that we had with some of these countries, it was disgraceful what they got away with for many, many decades. But now we know because this decision affirms all those things that some people weren’t sure about in order to protect and it says so. In order to protect our country, *** president can actually charge more tariffs than I was charging in the past. Period of *** year under the various tariff authorities so we can use other of the statutes, other of the tariff authorities which have also been confirmed and are fully allowed. Therefore, effective immediately, all national security tariffs under Section 232 and existing Section 301 tariffs, they’re existing, they’re there, remain in place, fully in place and in full force and effect. Today I will sign an order to impose *** 10% global tariff under Section 122, over and above our normal tariffs already being charged. And we’re also initiating several Section 301 and other investigations to protect our country from unfair trading practices of other countries and companies. Thank you for your attention to this matter, and I say quite simply, which I’ve said for *** long time. Make America great again and interestingly we’ve already made it great, so I don’t have to use that, but I don’t think we’ll ever give up on MAGA. MAGA is always going to be with us. Uh, if you have *** few questions, you can let us know. But just to end, so we’re going forward, we will be able to take in more money and there’ll no longer be doubt because there was always doubt. Uh, I know the people that brought the lawsuit and, you know, they’re sleazebags, major sleazebags, but I know them, and they’re foreign country-centric. They were sending things into our country and the people representing them knew full well that they were sending things into our country and they were beneficial to other countries, but very, very bad for us, and I stopped it and we’ll just keep it going. So we have more of ***, we have *** totally firm decision now, and I don’t think the court meant it because the court doesn’t show great. The Spirit toward our country in my opinion. *** lot of bad decisions, but there are usually ways around it. This is something we could have done, as Justice Kavanaugh said, we could have done this originally, but we’re doing it now, and the numbers could be far greater than the hundreds of.
Advertisement
The Supreme Court struck down President Donald Trump’s far-reaching global tariffs on Friday, handing him a significant loss on an issue crucial to his economic agenda.In response, Trump said he will impose a global 10% tariff as an alternative while pressing his trade policies by other means. The new tariffs would come under a law that restricts them to 150 days.Trump said he was “absolutely ashamed” of the Supreme Court justices who voted to strike down much of his sweeping tariff infrastructure as an illegal use of emergency power and called the ruling “deeply disappointing.”“Their decision is incorrect,” he said. “But it doesn’t matter because we have very powerful alternatives.”The court’s 6-3 decision centers on tariffs imposed under an emergency powers law, including the sweeping “reciprocal” tariffs he levied on nearly every other country.His loss before the conservative-majority high court came despite a series of short-term Trump wins that have allowed him to move ahead with key aspects of his broad agency. It’s the first major piece of Trump’s broad agenda to come squarely before the nation’s highest court, which he helped shape with the appointments of three conservative jurists in his first term. Video below: Hearst Television’s Christopher Salas asks President Trump about new tariff rates following Supreme Court rulingThe majority found that it’s unconstitutional for the president to unilaterally set and change tariffs because taxation power clearly belongs to Congress. “The Framers did not vest any part of the taxing power in the Executive Branch,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote.Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.“The tariffs at issue here may or may not be wise policy. But as a matter of text, history, and precedent, they are clearly lawful,” Kavanaugh wrote. READ THE COURT’S RULING HERE. Trump called the majority decision “a disgrace” when he was notified during his morning meeting with several governors, according to someone with direct knowledge of the president’s reaction who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the private conversation.The court majority did not address whether companies could get refunded for the billions they have collectively paid in tariffs. Many companies, including the big-box warehouse chain Costco, have already lined up to demand refunds in lower courts. Kavanaugh noted the process could be complicated.“The Court says nothing today about whether, and if so how, the Government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers. But that process is likely to be a ‘mess,’ as was acknowledged at oral argument,” he wrote.The Treasury had collected more than $133 billion from the import taxes the president has imposed under the emergency powers law as of December, federal data shows. The impact over the next decade was estimated at some $3 trillion.The tariffs decision doesn’t stop Trump from imposing duties under other laws. While those have more limitations on the speed and severity of Trump’s actions, top administration officials have said they expect to keep the tariff framework in place under other authorities.Still, the decision is a “complete and total victory” for the challengers, said Neal Katyal, who argued the case on behalf of a group of small businesses.“It’s a reaffirmation of our deepest constitutional values and the idea that Congress, not any one man, controls the power to tax the American people,” he said.It wasn’t immediately clear how the decision restricting Trump’s power to unilaterally set and change tariffs might affect trade deals with other countries.“We remain in close contact with the U.S. Administration as we seek clarity on the steps they intend to take in response to this ruling,” European Commission spokesman Olof Gill said, adding that the body would keep pushing for lower tariffs.The Supreme Court ruling comes despite a series of short-term wins on the court’s emergency docket that have allowed Trump to push ahead with extraordinary flexes of executive power on issues ranging from high-profile firings to major federal funding cuts.The Republican president has been vocal about the case, calling it one of the most important in U.S. history and saying a ruling against him would be an economic body blow to the country. But legal opposition crossed the political spectrum, including libertarian and pro-business groups that are typically aligned with the GOP. Polling has found tariffs aren’t broadly popular with the public, amid wider voter concern about affordability.While the Constitution gives Congress the power to levy tariffs, the Trump administration argued that a 1977 law allowing the president to regulate importation during emergencies also allows him to set import duties. Other presidents have used the law dozens of times, often to impose sanctions, but Trump was the first president to invoke it for import taxes.“And the fact that no President has ever found such power in IEEPA is strong evidence that it does not exist,” Roberts wrote, using an acronym for the law called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.Trump set what he called “reciprocal” tariffs on most countries in April 2025 to address trade deficits that he declared a national emergency. Those came after he imposed duties on Canada, China and Mexico, ostensibly to address a drug trafficking emergency.A series of lawsuits followed, including a case from a dozen largely Democratic-leaning states and others from small businesses selling everything from plumbing supplies to educational toys to women’s cycling apparel.The challengers argued the emergency powers law doesn’t even mention tariffs and Trump’s use of it fails several legal tests, including one that doomed then-President Joe Biden’s $500 billion student loan forgiveness program.The three conservative justices in the majority pointed to that principle, which is called the major questions doctrine and holds that Congress must clearly authorize actions of major economic and political significance.“There is no exception to the major questions doctrine for emergency statutes,” Roberts wrote. The three liberal justices who formed the rest of the majority didn’t join that part of the opinion.The Trump administration had argued that tariffs are different because they’re a major part of Trump’s approach to foreign affairs, an area where the courts should not be second-guessing the president.But Roberts, joined by Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, brushed that aside, writing that the foreign affairs implications don’t change the legal principle.Small businesses celebrated the ruling, with the National Retail Federation saying it provides “much needed certainty.”Ann Robinson, who owns Scottish Gourmet in Greensboro, North Carolina, said she was “doing a happy dance” when she heard the news.The 10% baseline tariff on U.K. goods put pressure on Robinson’s business, costing about $30,000 in the fall season. She’s unsure about the Trump administration’s next steps, but said she’s overjoyed for now. “Time to schedule my ‘Say Goodbye to Tariffs’ Sale!”___Associated Press writers Mark Sherman in Washington and Steve Peoples in New York contributed to this report.
The Supreme Court struck down President Donald Trump’s far-reaching global tariffs on Friday, handing him a significant loss on an issue crucial to his economic agenda.
Advertisement
In response, Trump said he will impose a global 10% tariff as an alternative while pressing his trade policies by other means. The new tariffs would come under a law that restricts them to 150 days.
Trump said he was “absolutely ashamed” of the Supreme Court justices who voted to strike down much of his sweeping tariff infrastructure as an illegal use of emergency power and called the ruling “deeply disappointing.”
“Their decision is incorrect,” he said. “But it doesn’t matter because we have very powerful alternatives.”
The court’s 6-3 decision centers on tariffs imposed under an emergency powers law, including the sweeping “reciprocal” tariffs he levied on nearly every other country.
His loss before the conservative-majority high court came despite a series of short-term Trump wins that have allowed him to move ahead with key aspects of his broad agency.
It’s the first major piece of Trump’s broad agenda to come squarely before the nation’s highest court, which he helped shape with the appointments of three conservative jurists in his first term.
Video below: Hearst Television’s Christopher Salas asks President Trump about new tariff rates following Supreme Court ruling
The majority found that it’s unconstitutional for the president to unilaterally set and change tariffs because taxation power clearly belongs to Congress. “The Framers did not vest any part of the taxing power in the Executive Branch,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote.
Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.
“The tariffs at issue here may or may not be wise policy. But as a matter of text, history, and precedent, they are clearly lawful,” Kavanaugh wrote.
Trump called the majority decision “a disgrace” when he was notified during his morning meeting with several governors, according to someone with direct knowledge of the president’s reaction who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the private conversation.
The court majority did not address whether companies could get refunded for the billions they have collectively paid in tariffs. Many companies, including the big-box warehouse chain Costco, have already lined up to demand refunds in lower courts. Kavanaugh noted the process could be complicated.
“The Court says nothing today about whether, and if so how, the Government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers. But that process is likely to be a ‘mess,’ as was acknowledged at oral argument,” he wrote.
The Treasury had collected more than $133 billion from the import taxes the president has imposed under the emergency powers law as of December, federal data shows. The impact over the next decade was estimated at some $3 trillion.
The tariffs decision doesn’t stop Trump from imposing duties under other laws. While those have more limitations on the speed and severity of Trump’s actions, top administration officials have said they expect to keep the tariff framework in place under other authorities.
Still, the decision is a “complete and total victory” for the challengers, said Neal Katyal, who argued the case on behalf of a group of small businesses.
“It’s a reaffirmation of our deepest constitutional values and the idea that Congress, not any one man, controls the power to tax the American people,” he said.
It wasn’t immediately clear how the decision restricting Trump’s power to unilaterally set and change tariffs might affect trade deals with other countries.
“We remain in close contact with the U.S. Administration as we seek clarity on the steps they intend to take in response to this ruling,” European Commission spokesman Olof Gill said, adding that the body would keep pushing for lower tariffs.
The Supreme Court ruling comes despite a series of short-term wins on the court’s emergency docket that have allowed Trump to push ahead with extraordinary flexes of executive power on issues ranging from high-profile firings to major federal funding cuts.
The Republican president has been vocal about the case, calling it one of the most important in U.S. history and saying a ruling against him would be an economic body blow to the country. But legal opposition crossed the political spectrum, including libertarian and pro-business groups that are typically aligned with the GOP. Polling has found tariffs aren’t broadly popular with the public, amid wider voter concern about affordability.
While the Constitution gives Congress the power to levy tariffs, the Trump administration argued that a 1977 law allowing the president to regulate importation during emergencies also allows him to set import duties. Other presidents have used the law dozens of times, often to impose sanctions, but Trump was the first president to invoke it for import taxes.
“And the fact that no President has ever found such power in IEEPA is strong evidence that it does not exist,” Roberts wrote, using an acronym for the law called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
Trump set what he called “reciprocal” tariffs on most countries in April 2025 to address trade deficits that he declared a national emergency. Those came after he imposed duties on Canada, China and Mexico, ostensibly to address a drug trafficking emergency.
A series of lawsuits followed, including a case from a dozen largely Democratic-leaning states and others from small businesses selling everything from plumbing supplies to educational toys to women’s cycling apparel.
The challengers argued the emergency powers law doesn’t even mention tariffs and Trump’s use of it fails several legal tests, including one that doomed then-President Joe Biden’s $500 billion student loan forgiveness program.
The three conservative justices in the majority pointed to that principle, which is called the major questions doctrine and holds that Congress must clearly authorize actions of major economic and political significance.
“There is no exception to the major questions doctrine for emergency statutes,” Roberts wrote. The three liberal justices who formed the rest of the majority didn’t join that part of the opinion.
The Trump administration had argued that tariffs are different because they’re a major part of Trump’s approach to foreign affairs, an area where the courts should not be second-guessing the president.
But Roberts, joined by Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, brushed that aside, writing that the foreign affairs implications don’t change the legal principle.
Small businesses celebrated the ruling, with the National Retail Federation saying it provides “much needed certainty.”
Ann Robinson, who owns Scottish Gourmet in Greensboro, North Carolina, said she was “doing a happy dance” when she heard the news.
The 10% baseline tariff on U.K. goods put pressure on Robinson’s business, costing about $30,000 in the fall season. She’s unsure about the Trump administration’s next steps, but said she’s overjoyed for now. “Time to schedule my ‘Say Goodbye to Tariffs’ Sale!”
___
Associated Press writers Mark Sherman in Washington and Steve Peoples in New York contributed to this report.
