On Monday, in a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court blocked a New York trial court order that would have required redrawing a congressional district ahead of the 2026 election.
By granting a stay requested by Rep. Nicole Malliotakis and state election officials, the Court’s conservative majority sent a clear message: state courts cannot use the pretext of &#8220;vote dilution&#8221; to mandate simple racial discrimination or justify actions that violate the Equal Protection Clause.
The case centers on New York’s 11th Congressional District, encompassing Staten Island and southern Brooklyn. Activists attempted to use the state constitution to force the creation of a &#8220;crossover&#8221; district, specifically designed to ensure that minority voters — who comprise approximately 30% of Staten Island&#8217;s population — could elect their preferred candidates.
In January, Justice Jeffrey Pearlman of the New York Supreme Court, a trial-level court, <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/03/supreme-court-grants-republicans-request-to-pause-order-to-redraw-new-york-congressional-map/">sided</a> with these activists. He prohibited the use of the existing congressional map and ordered the Independent Redistricting Commission to redraw the lines based on explicit racial targets. Critics of the order argued that it amounted to a race-based gerrymander targeting the only Republican representative in New York City, prioritizing identity politics over neutral districting.
Justice Samuel Alito cut through the legal jargon to identify the trial court&#8217;s order for what it was: a violation of the 14th Amendment. Alito made clear that a state court cannot authorize redistricting for the &#8220;express purpose&#8221; of producing race-based outcomes.
Citing its 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions, the Supreme Court reiterated that the government may only engage in race-based action under &#8220;extraordinary&#8221; circumstances, such as remediating specific, identified past discrimination. In granting the stay, the majority suggested that neither the lower court nor the challengers provided sufficient justification. As Alito noted: &#8220;A state law cannot authorize the violation of federal rights.&#8221;
The Supreme Court’s decision is good news for Republican leaders in states like Texas and Louisiana, where Democrats and civil rights groups have argued that the states must draw more &#8220;opportunity districts&#8221; to account for minority population growth.
By granting the stay, the Court signaled skepticism toward making special &#8220;crossover&#8221; districts to achieve race-based electoral outcomes. That reasoning could make it more difficult for groups to demand new maps based predominantly on racial demographics.
The Court also dealt with the Purcell principle, the doctrine cautioning against judicial changes to election rules too close to an election. Usually, judges aren&#8217;t supposed to change voting rules right before people vote, which could cause confusion.
Now, the Supreme Court is saying this &#8220;no-changes zone&#8221; starts much earlier — even four to eight months before the election. This acts like an emergency brake, stopping lower-court judges from forcing states to change their maps at the last minute. It keeps things stable and focuses on fair rules instead of meeting racial quotas.
This ruling is a win for those who believe the Constitution is colorblind. It stops what critics viewed as a partisan attempt to use race as a tool for political gain and ensures that New York’s 2026 elections proceed under established, legislatively enacted maps rather than experimental racial quotas.

Sign outside New York Congressman Nicole Malliotakis office

Supreme Court Slaps Down New York Judge’s Attempt to Redraw GOP District For ‘Racial Fairness’

Courts

gerrymandering

New York

Supreme Court

U.S.

The Supreme Court sided with a group of parents challenging a California policy that allowed schools to keep kids&#8217; so-called gender transitions a secret.
In a 6-3 decision on Monday, the justices said that California policies that block schools from notifying parents about their child’s desire to change their sex and be referred to by incorrect pronouns likely violate their religious liberty. The ruling comes after the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a lower court’s ruling siding with parents challenging California’s policies.
“We conclude that the parents who seek religious exemptions are likely to succeed on the merits of their Free Exercise Clause claim,” the Supreme Court majority <a href="https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/63d954d4e4ad424df7819d46/69a61b347a7b680a9027a546_25A810.pdf">wrote</a>. “The parents who assert a free exercise claim have sincere religious beliefs about sex and gender, and they feel a religious obligation to raise their children in accordance with those beliefs. California’s policies violate those beliefs.”
The California Department of Education has argued that the challenge should be considered moot because they claim that a <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20240113000622/https://www.cde.ca.gov/re/di/eo/faqs.asp">frequently-asked-questions</a> page posted by the department has been edited to show that they do not mandate parental exclusion, and so there is no more cause for complaint. The FAQ page included a line that said, “with rare exceptions, schools are required to respect the limitations that a student places on the disclosure of their transgender status, including not sharing that information with the student’s parents.”
While that guidance was deleted, policies that kept parents in the dark about their children were still promoted in statewide teacher trainings, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/california-officials-lied-about-secret-gender-transitions-in-schools-documents-show">according</a> to documents uncovered by the Thomas More Society.
Policies prohibiting local school districts from passing measures requiring teachers to inform parents about a student’s identity were signed by Governor Gavin Newsom.
“Gender dysphoria is a condition that has an important bearing on a child’s mental health, but when a child exhibits symptoms of gender dysphoria at school, California’s policies conceal that information from parents and facilitate a degree of gender transitioning during school hours. These policies likely violate parents’ rights to direct the upbringing and education of their children,” the majority wrote.
They added that “the intrusion on parents’ free exercise rights here—unconsented facilitation of a child’s gender transition—is greater than the introduction of LGBTQ storybooks we considered sufficient to trigger strict scrutiny in Mahmoud.”
Mahmoud was a case from last year where the court ruled that a Maryland county violated the rights of parents who wanted to opt their kids out of instruction related to LGBT content.
Paul Jonna, special counsel at the Thomas More Society and partner at LiMandri and Jonna LLP, said the ruling was a major victory for parents.
“This is a watershed moment for parental rights in America,” she said. “The Supreme Court has told California and every state in the nation in no uncertain terms: you cannot secretly transition a child behind a parent’s back. The Court’s landmark reaffirmation of substantive due process, its vindication of religious liberty, and its approval of class-wide relief together set a historic precedent that will dismantle secret gender transition policies across the country.”
The court&#8217;s liberal justices — Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson — wanted to block the parents’ challenge.

MixCollage-02-Mar-2026-06-37-PM-4583

Supreme Court Slaps Down California Policy On Gender-Confused Kids

California

Gavin Newsom

Religious Liberty

Transgender

President Donald Trump said Senator Ted Cruz could be Supreme Court nominee in the near future, praising the Texas Republican during a speech in Corpus Christi on Friday evening.
Trump, who was once a fierce critic of Cruz, called the senator &#8220;an amazing guy&#8221; who is &#8220;so good and so talented.&#8221;
&#8220;I&#8217;m thinking about putting him in the Supreme Court,&#8221; Trump said. &#8220;I&#8217;m thinking because it&#8217;s very hard, getting these nominations through is tough.&#8221;
The president added that Cruz would receive &#8220;100%&#8221; of the Democratic and Republican vote, arguing that Cruz&#8217;s foes would &#8220;want to get him out of [the Senate]. He is such a pain in the ass.&#8221;
Trump also floated the idea of a Cruz Supreme Court appointment during a speech last month, calling the senator a &#8220;brilliant legal mind.&#8221; Cruz, however, shot the proposal down in January.
&#8220;My answer&#8217;s not just no, it&#8217;s hell no,&#8221; he <a href="https://www.fox26houston.com/news/supreme-court-texas-ted-cruz-donald-trump">said</a>. &#8220;It is interesting in the first Trump term, the president talked to me about all three Supreme Court vacancies, and we had very serious conversations and I told him no all three times.&#8221;
Cruz added that he wants to be &#8220;right in the middle&#8221; of political battles, something the Republican said a &#8220;principled federal judge&#8221; would stay out of.
After completing law school, Cruz clerked for Chief Justice William Rehnquist at the Supreme Court from 1996 to 1997. Trump first discussed the idea of nominating Cruz to the Supreme Court with the senator privately after the death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, according to Cruz.
&#8220;I wrestled with it because I knew Justice Scalia and revered him,&#8221; Cruz added. &#8220;And to have the opportunity to succeed him, I mean, talk about taking your breath away.&#8221;
While none of the Supreme Court justices have announced plans to retire anytime soon, there has been talk of either Samuel Alito or Clarence Thomas, the two oldest and most conservative justices, retiring within the next couple of years to give Trump a chance to replace either of them with another conservative. Thomas is 77-years-old and Alito is 75.
Alito is set to release a book in early October, which has sparked rumors that the conservative justice could be hanging up his robe before the beginning of the Supreme Court&#8217;s next term, which also begins in October. Alito has served on the court for 20 years, while Thomas is the longest-tenured justice, nearing his 35th year on the high court.
When asked about Thomas or Alito potentially retiring in the near future, Trump <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2025/12/09/donald-trump-full-interview-transcript-00681693?nid=0000014f-1646-d88f-a1cf-5f46b7bd0000&amp;nname=playbook&amp;nrid=fe8db97b-d67e-4e92-8f3a-1577ce038e35">told</a> POLITICO in December that he wants both of them to stay on the court.
&#8220;Both of those men are fantastic,&#8221; he said.
After Republicans successfully prevented former President Barack Obama from tapping Merrick Garland as Scalia&#8217;s replacement — thanks to the efforts of then-Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell — Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch in 2017. Trump went on to nominate two more justices, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, during his first term. Conservatives now have a 6-3 majority, but Trump has recently been frustrated with conservative justices, including Gorsuch, Coney Barrett, and Chief Justice John Roberts.

Trump Signs Order Seeking To Limit State-Level AI Regulation

Trump Floats Idea For His Next Supreme Court Appointment As Rumors Swirl About Possible Retirements

Clarence Thomas

Donald Trump

Executive

Politics

Samuel Alito

Ted Cruz

The U.S. Supreme Court <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/02/supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-case-on-colorado-dispute-over-climate-change/">announced</a> Monday that it will take up a major climate change lawsuit targeting the energy industry — a case that could determine the future of similar lawsuits filed by left-wing states and municipalities across the country.
The Court agreed to review Suncor Energy Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County. They granted the hearing after the Colorado Supreme Court allowed Boulder County’s state-law claims to proceed, rejecting arguments from energy producers that the lawsuit is preempted by federal law. 
The decision comes amid a wave of nearly three dozen lawsuits brought by leftist jurisdictions seeking to hold oil and gas companies financially liable for alleged climate change damages.
Boulder County’s lawsuit accuses energy companies of knowingly contributing to climate change and claims the resulting environmental effects have caused millions of dollars in damage to local property and residents. Energy producers have countered that such claims attempt to regulate interstate and global emissions through state tort law, an approach they argue is incompatible with the Constitution and federal environmental statutes.
Legal experts say the Supreme Court’s intervention signals concern about allowing state courts to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/woke-lawfare-is-the-latest-frontier-for-the-lefts-antidemocratic-attacks-report-says">set</a> national energy and climate policy.
Christopher Mills, a constitutional attorney and former law clerk to Clarence Thomas, said the Court is correctly recognizing the national stakes involved. “The Court&#8217;s action shows that it rightly recognizes that this is a national issue in need of an immediate national resolution,” Mills <a href="https://www.thecentersquare.com/national/article_8d590b75-5787-4f63-8784-8a722960477b.html">said</a>. “Letting these copycat lawsuits fester in state courts across the country is a recipe for uncertainty, undermining American energy production and harming consumers.”
Todd Zywicki, a law professor at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School, described the case as a test of whether local governments can effectively impose national policy through litigation. “For years, trial lawyers and left-wing municipalities have used state law as a backdoor to impose their preferred energy policies on the entire country — without a vote, without Congress, and without accountability,” Zywicki said, adding that the Constitution does not permit such an end run around federal authority.
Former Bush administration official John Shu emphasized that greenhouse gas emissions, by definition, do not respect state borders, placing them squarely within Congress’s regulatory authority under the Commerce Clause and the Clean Air Act.
Boulder County, for its part, argued that Supreme Court review is premature because the case has not reached a final judgment. The justices nevertheless agreed to hear the dispute and directed the parties to address whether the Court has jurisdiction to review the case at this stage. 
The incentive for Boulder to resist Supreme Court review right now is that State and local governments have generally had more success keeping these climate lawsuits alive in friendly state courts, where judges have been willing to treat them as traditional nuisance or consumer-protection cases. Once the Supreme Court weighs in, especially on the federal preemption question, a ruling against Boulder could wipe out not just this case but dozens of similar lawsuits nationwide in one stroke.
Oral arguments are expected in the fall, with a decision likely in 2026, and one that could determine whether state courts may continue serving as battlegrounds for national climate policy or whether such questions must remain with Congress.

Supreme Court Releases Opinions

How The Left-Wing Climate Crusade May Be Nearing Its Breaking Point

Supreme Court Takes Up Case To Determine If States Can Sue Energy Companies Over Climate Change

Climate Change

Colorado

Energy

SCOTUS

The across-the-board global tariff imposed by President Donald Trump took effect on Tuesday at 10%, lower than the 15% rate the president said would be implemented. 
A <a href="https://content.govdelivery.com/bulletins/gd/USDHSCBP-40b3b7b">bulletin</a> issued Tuesday by Customs and Border Protection announced an “additional 10% ad valorem duty on imported articles of every country for a period of 150 days, unless specifically exempt.” The notice comes just days after Trump <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-hikes-his-new-tariffs-to-15-after-complete-review-of-scotus-decision?author=Mary+Margaret+Olohan&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=2&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Trump+Blasts+Past+Original+Tariff+Vow+After+Supreme+Court+Ruling">said</a> that he would raise the global tariff rate to 15% “effective immediately.” 
“Based on a thorough, detailed, and complete review of the ridiculous, poorly written, and extraordinarily anti-American decision on Tariffs issued yesterday, after MANY months of contemplation, by the United States Supreme Court, please let this statement serve to represent that I, as President of the United States of America, will be, effective immediately, raising the 10% Worldwide Tariff on Countries, many of which have been ‘ripping’ the U.S. off for decades, without retribution (until I came along!), to the fully allowed, and legally tested, 15% level,&#8221; Trump wrote on Truth Social. 
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/friendly-fire?utm_campaign=dwplus&amp;utm_content=20260224_sotu_aa_desktop&amp;utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=banner" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-sk="tooltip_parent">Watch the State of the Union with The Daily Wire! Live coverage from the nation&#8217;s capital begins at 7:45 ET.</a>
A White House official <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/trump-global-tariff-start-10-percent-despite-announcement-15-percent-rcna260369">told</a> NBC News that the rate would start at 10% while officials prepare a separate executive order to increase it to 15%. The Daily Wire has reached out to the White House for clarification on the tariff rates. 
The Customs and Border Protection bulletin cited an <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2026/02/imposing-a-temporary-import-surcharge-to-address-fundamental-international-payments-problems/">executive order</a> Trump signed Friday after the Supreme Court struck down his &#8220;Liberation Day” tariffs, which had been imposed under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA). 

“I find that a surcharge in the form of ad valorem duties on certain imports is required to deal with the United States’ large and serious balance-of-payments deficit,” Trump wrote. “Accordingly, I impose, for a period of 150 days, a temporary import surcharge of 10 percent ad valorem, as described below, on articles imported into the United States, effective February 24, 2026.”
Products exempt from the tariffs include certain critical minerals, metals used in currency, energy and energy products, certain agricultural products, pharmaceuticals, certain electronics, and some passenger vehicles. 
These tariffs were imposed under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which authorizes the president to address “certain fundamental international payment problems through surcharges and other special import restrictions.”
The Supreme Court ruling has led to uncertainty surrounding Trump’s broader economic agenda. On Monday, the European Union <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/eu-pauses-trade-deal-after-trump-warns-countries-not-to-play-games?topStoryPosition=undefined&amp;author=Leif+Le+Mahieu&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=2&amp;row=1&amp;rowHeadline=Top+Stories&amp;rowType=Top+Stories&amp;title=EU+Pauses+Trade+Deal+After+Trump+Warns+Countries+Not+To+‘Play+Games’">moved</a> to pause adoption of a trade deal with the United States that had been negotiated under Trump’s IEEPA tariffs.

President Trump Holds Press Briefing On Supreme Court’s Decision To Strike Down His Global Tariffs

Trump’s Global Tariffs Kick In At Lower Rate Than Expected

Customs and Border Protection (CPB)

Economy

Tariffs

trade

President Donald Trump ripped into the Supreme Court again on Monday over its decision to strike down most of his “Liberation Day” tariffs, saying he would continue to use other tools to implement his economic agenda. 
“The supreme court (will be using lower case letters for a while based on a complete lack of respect!) of the United States accidentally and unwittingly gave me, as President of the United States, far more powers and strength than I had prior to their ridiculous, dumb, and very internationally divisive ruling,” Trump <a href="https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/116119857222583140">wrote</a> on Truth Social. 
The Supreme Court on Friday ruled 6-3 that Trump could not use the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose broad-scale tariffs on countries across the globe. On Saturday, Trump <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-hikes-his-new-tariffs-to-15-after-complete-review-of-scotus-decision?author=Mary+Margaret+Olohan&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=0&amp;row=0&amp;rowHeadline=Up+Next&amp;rowType=Up+Next+Carousel&amp;title=Trump+Hikes+His+New+Tariffs+To+15%25+After+%E2%80%98Complete+Review%E2%80%99+Of+SCOTUS+Decision">signed</a> a global 15% tariff on all countries under the Trade Act of 1974. 
Trump suggested Monday that he would impose licensing requirements on foreign goods entering the United States. 
“For one thing, I can use Licenses to do absolutely ‘terrible’ things to foreign countries, especially those countries that have been RIPPING US OFF for many decades, but incomprehensibly, according to the ruling, can’t charge them a License fee — BUT ALL LICENSES CHARGE FEES, why can’t the United States do so? You do a license to get a fee! The opinion doesn’t explain that, but I know the answer!” Trump said. 
The president added that the Supreme Court should be “ashamed” of the tariff ruling, except for the three justices who dissented. Justice Brett Kavanaugh <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/kavanaugh-trump-has-other-legal-paths-to-keep-tariffs-in-place-despite-scotus-ruling?author=Leif+Le+Mahieu&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=2&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Kavanaugh+Lays+Out+How+Trump+Could+Recreate+Tariffs+Through+Other+Laws">authored</a> the dissenting opinion, which was joined by conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. 
“Our incompetent supreme court (sic) did a great job for the wrong people, and for that they should be ashamed of themselves (but not the Great Three!),” Trump said. 
The president also suggested that the Supreme Court might next strike down his executive actions to prevent the children of illegal immigrants or foreigners with temporary visas from receiving citizenship upon birth in the United States. Trump said that striking down his actions would benefit China. 
“This supreme court (sic) will find a way to come to the wrong conclusion, one that again will make China, and various other Nations, happy and rich,” Trump said. “Let our supreme court (sic) keep making decisions that are so bad and deleterious to the future of our Nation &#8211; I have a job to do.”

President Trump And The First Lady Host Governor’s Dinner In East Room Of White House

‘A Great Job For The Wrong People’: Trump Renews Attack On SCOTUS’s ‘Incompetent’ Tariff Ruling

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump announced on Saturday that he will hike his worldwide tariffs to 15% after a &#8220;complete review&#8221; of the Supreme Court decision blocking his tariffs on Friday.
&#8220;Based on a thorough, detailed, and complete review of the ridiculous, poorly written, and extraordinarily anti-American decision on Tariffs issued yesterday, after MANY months of contemplation, by the United States Supreme Court, please let this statement serve to represent that I, as President of the United States of America, will be, effective immediately, raising the 10% Worldwide Tariff on Countries, many of which have been &#8216;ripping&#8217; the U.S. off for decades, without retribution (until I came along!), to the fully allowed, and legally tested, 15% level,&#8221; said Trump in a Saturday morning Truth Social post.
The president added: &#8220;During the next short number of months, the Trump Administration will determine and issue the new and legally permissible Tariffs, which will continue our extraordinarily successful process of Making America Great Again &#8211; GREATER THAN EVER BEFORE!!!&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
NEW: President Trump is raising the 10% worldwide tariff to the &#8220;fully allowed, and legally tested, 15% level.&#8221; <a href="https://t.co/0JsJDqLsh2">pic.twitter.com/0JsJDqLsh2</a>
— Mary Margaret Olohan (@MaryMargOlohan) <a href="https://twitter.com/MaryMargOlohan/status/2025242938624589857?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 21, 2026</a></blockquote>
The White House clarified on Friday that Trump is levying the tariffs by invoking his authority under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, empowering him to address “certain fundamental international payment problems through surcharges and other special import restrictions.&#8221; The initial White House proclamation imposed a 10% ad valorem import duty on all articles imported into the U.S. for 150 days, taking effect February 24 at 12:01 a.m.
“By taking this action, the United States can stem the outflow of its dollars to foreign producers and incentivize the return of domestic production,” a White House fact sheet explains. “By increasing its domestic production, the United States can correct its balance-of-payments deficit, while also creating good-paying jobs, and lowering costs for consumers.”
<div id="attachment_1047745" style="width: 886px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-hikes-his-new-tariffs-to-15-after-complete-review-of-scotus-decision/trumps-global-tariffs-struck-down-by-us-supreme-court" rel="attachment wp-att-1047745"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1047745" class="wp-image-1047745 size-large" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/02/GettyImages-2262195055-876x576.jpg" alt="" width="876" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/02/GettyImages-2262195055-876x576.jpg 876w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/02/GettyImages-2262195055-300x197.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/02/GettyImages-2262195055-768x505.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/02/GettyImages-2262195055.jpg 1024w" sizes=" (max-width: 876px) 100vw, 876px" /></a>President Donald Trump imposed a 10% global tariff on foreign goods, moving quickly to preserve his trade agenda after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down many of the levies he imposed last year. Photographer: Kyle Grillot/Bloomberg via Getty Images</div>
Trump&#8217;s actions come after the Supreme Court struck down his reciprocal tariffs on dozens of countries in a 6-3 decision on Friday, saying that the president does not have the authority to impose those broad-scale tariffs.
Trump, in a White House press briefing on Friday and in subsequent social media posts, said repeatedly that he is “ashamed” of the Supreme Court justices who ruled against him for “not having the Courage to do what is right for our Country.”
On the other hand, the president has repeatedly praised the justices who ruled in his favor.
&#8220;My new hero is United States Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh and, of course, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito,&#8221; he posted on Saturday morning. &#8220;There is no doubt in anyone’s mind that they want to, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!&#8221;

President Donald Trump

Trump Blasts Past Original Tariff Vow After Supreme Court Ruling

Most Americans say the Supreme Court of the United States was right to block much of President Donald Trump’s sweeping emergency tariffs, a decision on an issue that has exposed sharp divisions among Republicans and prompted open celebration from Democrats.
A <a href="https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/54148-most-americans-approve-of-the-supreme-court-striking-down-trumps-tariffs">YouGov</a> survey released Friday found that 60 percent of U.S. adults “strongly” or “somewhat” approve of the Court’s ruling, compared to 23 percent who disapprove and 17 percent who are unsure. Democrats backed the decision overwhelmingly at 88 percent, while 63 percent of independents also approved. Republicans were more divided: 43 percent disapproved, while 30 percent said they approve.
The ruling came Friday morning in a 6–3 decision against Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs on nearly all U.S. trading partners. Trump became the first president to rely on the nearly 50-year-old statute for such broad import taxes. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts concluded that IEEPA does not authorize the president’s tariff regime.
The Court declined to address whether previously collected tariffs must be refunded, leaving that question to lower courts. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee who joined the majority, has previously warned that refunds could become “a mess,” a concern echoed in dissent by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas.
The <a href="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/55693d60e4b06d83cf793431/t/6998a0b0febd02741b8399d0/1771610288746/Supreme+Court+Tariff+Ruling+IEEPA+Revenue+and+Potential+Refunds.pdf">Penn Wharton Budget Model</a> estimates the ruling could put as much as $175 billion in tariff revenue at risk, noting that importers typically have 180 days after goods are liquidated to file refund claims with U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
Reactions among Republican leaders ranged from constitutional praise to outright condemnation of the Court.
Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) applauded the ruling, writing on <a href="https://x.com/SenRandPaul/status/2024875042912285053">X</a> that the Court “defended the Constitution” by rejecting the use of emergency powers to impose taxes. “Tariffs are taxes and the power to declare them belongs to the Congress,” Paul added, warning that the precedent would have empowered future administrations to govern “by decree.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
The Supreme Court makes plain what should have been obvious: “The power to impose tariffs is “very clearly a branch of the power to tax.” <a href="https://t.co/FBjYD29Dfn">pic.twitter.com/FBjYD29Dfn</a>
— Senator Rand Paul (@SenRandPaul) <a href="https://twitter.com/SenRandPaul/status/2024873705478758639?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 20, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Vice President JD Vance, by contrast, <a href="https://x.com/JDVance/status/2024928034667545067">blasted</a> the ruling as judicial overreach. “This is lawlessness from the Court, plain and simple,” Vance wrote, arguing the decision would make it harder for presidents to protect American industries and supply chains.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) struck a more cautious tone, emphasizing that tariffs remain a viable policy tool. Thune <a href="https://x.com/LeaderJohnThune/status/2024909322388423065">said</a> Senate Republicans would continue working with the administration and House lawmakers to strengthen rural America, adding that Trump “has a wide range of other tariff powers and he will use them to defend American workers.”
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) similarly defended the president’s strategy, <a href="https://x.com/SpeakerJohnson/status/2024892242930884617">noting</a> that tariffs have “brought in billions of dollars and created immense leverage” for U.S. trade negotiations. “Congress and the Administration will determine the best path forward in the coming weeks,” Johnson said.
Former Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) sided firmly with the Court, <a href="https://x.com/SenMcConnell/status/2024909495734808714">calling</a> the use of IEEPA “illegal” and warning that tariffs raise costs for American consumers, a reality he said Kentuckians know “better than most.”
Democrats were far less divided. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) <a href="https://x.com/RepJeffries/status/2024869850980421739">called</a> the ruling “a big victory for the American people” and “another crushing defeat for the wannabe King.” Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA) <a href="https://x.com/timkaine/status/2024878481557844330">said</a> similarly of Trump’s plan, “tariffs were illegal, dumb, and harmful to families, farms, and small businesses. Americans don’t want tariffs, they want lower costs.”
Trump, speaking to reporters at the White House Friday afternoon, called the decision “disappointing” and criticized Barrett and Justice Neil Gorsuch, both of whom he appointed. “I don’t want to say whether I regret nominating them,” Trump said. “I think their decision was terrible.” He added that he was “proud” of Kavanaugh, saying the justice’s “stock has gone so up.”
Within hours of the ruling, Trump announced he had signed a new executive order imposing a 10 percent global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows temporary tariffs of up to 15 percent for 150 days to address large trade deficits.
The White House’s official X account responded more bluntly, posting: “Keep Calm and Tariff On.”

President Trump Departs White House For Florida

Republicans Divided As Tariff Debate Splits Voter Base After SCOTUS Decision

Polls

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump signed a global 10% tariff on all countries Friday evening following the Supreme Court&#8217;s ruling blocking his tariffs earlier in the day.
The president announced Friday evening that it was his &#8220;great honor&#8221; to have signed &#8220;a Global 10% Tariff on all Countries, which will be effective almost immediately.&#8221; The move is intended to address the fundamental international payment problems, the White House said, and to continue the Trump administration&#8217;s work to rebalance trade relationships in order to benefit American workers.
Trump is invoking his authority under section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, empowering him to address &#8220;certain fundamental international payment problems through surcharges and other special import restrictions,&#8221; the White House clarified in a fact sheet. The proclamation imposes a 10% ad valorem import duty on all articles imported into the U.S. for 150 days, taking effect February 24 at 12:01 a.m.
&#8220;By taking this action, the United States can stem the outflow of its dollars to foreign producers and incentivize the return of domestic production,&#8221; the fact sheet states. &#8220;By increasing its domestic production, the United States can correct its balance-of-payments deficit, while also creating good paying jobs, and lowering costs for consumers.&#8221;
The move came after the Supreme Court basically struck down Trump&#8217;s reciprocal tariffs on dozens of countries in a 6-3 decision, saying that the president does not have the authority to impose those broad-scale tariffs. Trump, in a White House press briefing on Friday and in subsequent social media posts, said repeatedly that he is &#8220;ashamed&#8221; of the Supreme Court justices who ruled against him for &#8220;not having the Courage to do what is right for our Country.&#8221;
In a Truth Social post on Friday night, he praised Justices Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and Samuel Alito for their &#8220;Strength, Wisdom, and Love of our Country.&#8221;
<div id="attachment_1047675" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/after-scotus-ruling-trump-fires-back-with-10-tariff-on-all-countries/president-trump-holds-press-briefing-on-supreme-courts-decision-to-strike-down-his-global-tariffs" rel="attachment wp-att-1047675"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1047675" class="wp-image-1047675 size-large" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/02/GettyImages-2262729694-864x576.jpg" alt="" width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/02/GettyImages-2262729694-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/02/GettyImages-2262729694-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/02/GettyImages-2262729694-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/02/GettyImages-2262729694.jpg 1024w" sizes=" (max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" /></a>President Donald Trump speaks during a press briefing at the White House on February 20, 2026 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Chen Mengtong/China News Service/VCG via Getty Images)</div>
&#8220;When you read the dissenting opinions, there is no way that anyone can argue against them,&#8221; Trump said. &#8220;Foreign Countries that have been ripping us off for years are ecstatic, and dancing in the streets — But they won’t be dancing for long! The Democrats on the Court are thrilled, but they will automatically vote &#8216;NO&#8217; against ANYTHING that makes America Strong and Healthy Again.&#8221;
&#8220;They, also, are a Disgrace to our Nation,&#8221; Trump added. &#8220;Others think they’re being &#8216;politically correct,&#8217; which has happened before, far too often, with certain Members of this Court when, in fact, they’re just FOOLS and &#8216;LAPDOGS&#8217; for the RINOS and Radical Left Democrats and, not that this should have anything to do with it, very unpatriotic, and disloyal to the Constitution. It is my opinion that the Court has been swayed by Foreign Interests, and a Political Movement that is far smaller than people would think — But obnoxious, ignorant, and loud!&#8221;
Trump said that the case was extremely important to him, symbolizing economic and national security more &#8220;than anything else.&#8221;
&#8220;The Good News,&#8221; the president said, &#8220;is that there are methods, practices, Statutes, and other Authorities, as recognized by the entire Court and Congress, that are even stronger than the IEEPA TARIFFS, available to me as President of the United States of America and, in actuality, I was very modest in my &#8216;ask&#8217; of other Countries and Businesses because I wanted to do nothing that could sway the decision that has been rendered by the Court.&#8221;
According to the White House, there are some goods that won&#8217;t be subject to the import duty, such as certain critical minerals, natural resources and fertilizers that can&#8217;t be grown or produced in the U.S., pharmaceuticals, electronics, passengers vehicles, certain aerospace products, and more.

Trump Slaps 10% Tariff On The World — ‘Effective Immediately’

The Supreme Court has struck down the Liberation Day tariffs. 
 
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court basically struck down the 10% baseline tariff on all trading partners. It struck down what Trump called reciprocal tariffs on dozens of countries. They weren&#8217;t actually reciprocal tariffs because those countries were not actually charging us those tariffs. We were just charging them higher tariffs on the basis of trade deficits. Drug trafficking tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China are gone. And the 145% effective rate on most Chinese goods is gone as well. 
The Supreme Court says that the president does not have the unilateral authority or ability to simply impose broad-scale tariffs. 
The reason I originally said these tariffs were unconstitutional is because Article I “powers of the purse,” belong to Congress. That includes the power to tariff. Article I of the Constitution specifically names the powers of the purse. It says that the Constitution includes the authority to tax, borrow money, regulate commerce, coin money, establish post offices, declare war, and raise armed forces. That is what is in the tax, spend, and commerce powers of Congress.
Now the questions are, what can be delegated? What can&#8217;t be delegated? And what has been delegated? 
So obviously, in certain specified contexts, Congress has delegated specific tariff authority to the president. But at any point, did Congress just say to the president, you can tariff anybody for any reason, interminably at any rate, that you want?
And the answer, says the Supreme Court, is no.
I agree with the decision, legally.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/bss-260220-sub?elementPosition=0&amp;row=0&amp;rowHeadline=Recent+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-large wp-image-974957 aligncenter" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1024x171.webp" alt="DailyWire+" width="1024" height="171" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1024x171.webp 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-300x50.webp 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-768x128.webp 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1536x256.webp 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-2048x341.webp 2048w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></a>
The question under consideration here was whether the president of the United States has the unilateral authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which is the power cited by the president of the United States, to levy tariffs on the entire world at once. That is the question at issue. 
The IEEPA text at issue states: 
<blockquote>At the times and to the extent specified in section 1701 of this title, the President may, under such regulations as he may prescribe, by means of instructions, licenses, or otherwise investigate, regulate, or prohibit any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of credit or payments between, by, through, or to any banking institution, to the extent that such transfers or payments involve any interest of any foreign country or a national thereof, the importing or exporting of currency or securities, by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.</blockquote>
What the majority found is that IEEPA does not include broad-scale, unilateral, gigantic tariff power where the president cannot simply wake up one morning, print out a gigantic poster board, and say there is now a 45% tariff on the Solomon Islands that was not delegated in the IEEPA. 
That decision is correct, although I find it somewhat ironic that Justice Roberts claimed that Obamacare was not a tax for purposes of finding it constitutional, but finds that tariffs are in fact a form of tax for purposes of finding them unconstitutional, as promoted by the president. 
There are two arguments made by the majority opinion. One, the IEEPA does not actually authorize tariff power to the president in the way that the president has done. 
This doesn&#8217;t mean the president doesn&#8217;t have alternative tariff power. There are other ways the president can impose tariffs if he wants to.
The second argument is that Congress never delegated this power to the president. If they had, it would be clear, and not some mystery. They would say, “All tariff power belongs to the president.”
They wouldn&#8217;t hide it in the text. That is what&#8217;s called the major questions doctrine. It&#8217;s part of the non-delegation doctrine. The non-delegation doctrine says that unless Congress has delegated a power that it holds to the executive branch, then the executive branch can&#8217;t exercise that power. And there are certain powers that Congress cannot actually just delegate to the executive branch, because those are core powers of Congress.
This is why you can&#8217;t just have Congress become a vestigial organ. It was never supposed to be this way.
If the president actually had the inherent power under his foreign policy powers to just impose tariffs, he wouldn&#8217;t need some sort of emergency declaration. The fact that they use the emergency declaration means this is not predominantly a foreign policy question.
I urge conservatives to think about this very strongly: If the president of the United States can simply declare a national emergency and then tariff the entire planet, what can&#8217;t the federal government do on the basis of an emergency? Many statutes authorize specific delegations of temporary authority under emergency circumstances. If that is broadened out to include things such as tariffing the whole planet, imagine Democrats saying, “Until all countries stop producing oil-powered vehicles, we are tariffing everyone at 70%.” They could do that based on the way the administration is currently interpreting the statute.
If it becomes clear that the Trump administration will let go of this issue, I think you will see the markets begin to climb. There are a lot of businesses in the United States that rely on foreign imports as inputs in their products, and they&#8217;ve been holding off on hiring; they&#8217;ve been holding off on development because they don&#8217;t know what&#8217;s coming down the pike.
I am still a constitutional conservative who likes the balance of powers, the checks and balances, who still remembers when the legislature was not a vestigial organ of government, and would like that to remain the case.
For conservatives, I understand: People love President Trump. I support President Trump as a general rule.
With that said, powers delegated to the executive branch do not flow back to the legislative branch very often. You&#8217;re not going to like those limits when they are applied to a president of a party to which you do not belong.
I&#8217;m finding it kind of ironic today, looking at all the Democrats who are celebrating this as a big victory. They wouldn&#8217;t be celebrating this if they understood it&#8217;s going to apply when a Democrat is in charge.
No one has expanded executive power in my lifetime like Barack Obama. And Joe Biden expanded it even further.
The notion that Democrats are not in love with executive power is insane to me.
It&#8217;s one of the reasons I don&#8217;t like the Democratic Party, because they keep wanting to expand the executive power at the cost of the checks and balances established by the Founders.

TOPSHOT-US-POLITICS-COURT-TARIFF-TRUMP-BRIEFING

SCOTUS Knocks Down Trump’s Tariffs

Opinion

The Supreme Court delivered a long-awaited decision on Friday, striking down President Trump’s sweeping International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) tariffs. But while the court ruled on the legality of the tariffs themselves, it did not address whether the United States must refund more than $200 billion in revenue already collected.
“The court’s decision is likely to generate other serious practical consequences in the near term. One issue will be refunds,” dissenting Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote. “Refunds of billions of dollars would have significant consequences for the U.S. Treasury.”
Ruling only on the narrow legal question before them, the court did not establish a framework for refunds. Such a framework will likely be established by lower courts, particularly the United States Court of International Trade, which ruled against Trump’s tariff decision.
In response to the Supreme Court decision, President Trump said, “They take months and months to write an opinion, and they don’t even discuss that point. We’ve taken in hundreds of billions of dollars … wouldn’t you think they’d put one sentence in there saying keep the money or don’t keep the money?”
If refunds are ultimately required, the United States Treasury would be tasked with reimbursing importers for the levies they incurred — a process Kavanaugh deemed a “mess,” as refunds could be required to be issued to foreign nations, consumers, and manufacturers depending on court outcomes.
The president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, Maya MacGuineas, said that with the federal deficit in mind, the ruling was very bad news: &#8220;With today’s Supreme Court ruling affirming the illegality of President Trump’s emergency tariffs, the country will now be about $2 trillion deeper in the hole. With the national debt already the size of the entire U.S. economy and interest on the debt costing more than $1 trillion this year, this is very bad news. Congress should work quickly to fill that hole.&#8221;
She added, &#8220;We are in a dismal fiscal situation, and it just got worse.”
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the $200 billion in tariff revenue could be used to shrink the $2 trillion deficit and pay down the $36 trillion debt.
Beyond budgetary concerns, the ruling could impact Trump’s broader use of tariffs as a foreign policy tool during negotiations. In February, he threatened to impose tariffs on countries that do business with Iran, citing the country’s repression of protesters, support for proxy terrorist groups, and continued pursuit of nuclear capabilities. In May, the president warned China that tariffs would increase if the country continued not to ship rare earth minerals to the United States — materials used in products ranging from household appliances and automobiles to semiconductors for artificial intelligence chips.
In addition to bringing back jobs and supply chains to the United States, Trump argues he needs tariffs to address a national security concern: the hollowing out of the manufacturing base. In an executive order signed on Liberation Day, Trump explained that the inability to scale advanced manufacturing undermines “critical supply chains; and rendered our defense-industrial base dependent on foreign adversaries.”
At a White House press conference on Friday, the president confirmed he will continue issuing tariffs under authorities granted to him through Section 232, rather than relying on the broader emergency powers provided under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

President Trump Holds “Make America Wealthy Again Event” In White House Rose Garden

Tariffs Overturned: What Happens To The $200 Billion Already Collected?

Scott Bessent

World

Justice Brett Kavanaugh said Friday that President Donald Trump could likely preserve most of his “Liberation Day” tariffs despite the Supreme Court&#8217;s decision striking them down. 
Writing in dissent, Kavanaugh argued that while the Court <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/scotus-strikes-down-most-of-trumps-tariffs-complicating-his-bid-to-rewrite-international-trade?topStoryPosition=undefined&amp;author=Zach+Jewell&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=0&amp;row=1&amp;rowHeadline=Top+Stories&amp;rowType=Top+Stories&amp;title=SCOTUS+Strikes+Down+Most+Of+Trump%E2%80%99s+Tariffs%2C+Complicating+His+Bid+To+Rewrite+International+Trade">rejected</a> Trump’s reliance on the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA), other federal statutes could authorize most of the tariffs.  
“Although I firmly disagree with the Court’s holding today, the decision might not substantially constrain a President’s ability to order tariffs going forward,” he wrote. “That is because numerous other federal statutes authorize the President to impose tariffs and might justify most (if not all) of the tariffs at issue in this case—albeit perhaps with a few additional procedural steps that IEEPA, as an emergency statute, does not require.”
Kavanaugh pointed specifically to the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, the Trade Act of 1974, and the Tariff Act of 1930 as alternative statutory bases that could authorize the tariffs Trump sought to impose. 
“IEEPA merely allows the President to impose tariffs somewhat more efficiently to deal with foreign threats during national emergencies,” he said. “In essence, the Court today concludes that the President checked the wrong statutory box by relying on IEEPA rather than another statute to impose these tariffs.”
Kavanaugh&#8217;s position mirrors one previously articulated by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. In December, Bessent <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2025/12/03/bessent-says-us-will-be-able-to-replicate-tariffs-even-if-it-loses-supreme-court-decision.html">said</a> multiple sections of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 could be used to “recreate the exact tariff structure” Trump imposed through IEEPA. 
In his dissent, Kavanaugh argued that both history and law were on Trump’s side. Specifically, Kavanaugh pointed to the global tariffs imposed by former President Richard Nixon in 1971 as an example of a president imposing broad trade restrictions during an economic crisis.
“Statutory text, history, and precedent demonstrate that the answer is clearly yes: Like quotas and embargoes, tariffs are a traditional and common tool to regulate importation,” he said. 
Kavanaugh also argued that it would be illogical to allow the president to block all trade with China while barring him from imposing tariffs on Chinese imports. 
“As [the plaintiffs] interpret the statute, the President could, for example, block all imports from China but cannot order even a $1 tariff on goods imported from China,” Kavanaugh said. “That approach does not make much sense.”
Kavanaugh also warned that the ruling could raise questions about whether the government must issue refunds for tariffs already collected and potentially affect trade deals negotiated under those tariffs. 
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito joined Kavanaugh&#8217;s dissent. Thomas also wrote a separate opinion arguing that Congress had delegated tariff authority to the president.

President Trump Delivers State Of The Union Address To Joint Session Of Congress

Kavanaugh Lays Out How Trump Could Recreate Tariffs Through Other Laws

Brett Kavanaugh

Menu