Sign Up Account Profile Log Out

Newsletters Morning Report 12:30 Report Evening Report Business Defense Health Care Technology Newsletter Energy & Environment Whole Hog Politics The Gavel The Movement

Technology Newsletter

NEWS Senate House Administration Courts Future America Media Campaign News Education In The Know Latino LGBTQ DC News Race & Politics State Watch Print Edition People in the News

POLICY Defense Health Care Energy & Environment Technology Transportation International Cybersecurity National Security Space Sustainability

BUSINESS Budget Taxes Personal Finance Lobbying

OPINION Columnists Congress Blog All Contributors Opinions – Campaign Opinions – Civil Rights Opinions – Criminal Justice Opinions – Cybersecurity Opinions – Education Opinions – Energy and Environment Opinions – Finance Opinions – Healthcare Opinions – Immigration Opinions – International Opinions – Judiciary Opinions – National Security Opinions – Technology Opinions – White House Submit Opinion Content

All Contributors Opinions – Campaign Opinions – Civil Rights Opinions – Criminal Justice Opinions – Cybersecurity Opinions – Education Opinions – Energy and Environment Opinions – Finance Opinions – Healthcare Opinions – Immigration Opinions – International Opinions – Judiciary Opinions – National Security Opinions – Technology Opinions – White House

Opinions – Civil Rights

Opinions – Criminal Justice

Opinions – Cybersecurity

Opinions – Energy and Environment

Opinions – Healthcare

Opinions – Immigration

Opinions – International

Opinions – National Security

Opinions – Technology

Opinions – White House

Submit Opinion Content

EVENTS Upcoming Events About

Sign Up Account Profile Log Out

Supreme Court axes tariffs

Content from Google Cloud

Elon Musk’s X appeals $140M EU fine Technology | 17 minutes ago

DOJ moves quickly to boot judge-appointed Virginia US attorney Administration | 51 minutes ago

Jeffries: Supreme Court tariff ruling a ‘crushing defeat for the wannabe King’ House | 1 hour ago

Epstein survivor denounces Les Wexner’s deposition before House as ‘abhorrent’ House | 1 hour ago

Opinion There is a new bipartisan coalition in town — just not the one we wanted Opinions - Campaign | 1 hour ago

Opinion Tolerance for mismanagement threatens progressive governance Opinions - Finance | 2 hours ago

Huckabee claims it would be ‘fine’ if Israel took all of Middle East International | 2 hours ago

Trump blasts ‘disloyal’ Republicans after Supreme Court sinks tariffs Administration | 2 hours ago

The Supreme Court has ruled on tariffs, but who will ultimately pay?

Friday’s blockbuster ruling on tariffs was hardly welcomed by the Trump administration, but it was also widely expected. The Supreme Court clearly established in its 6-3 decision that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not afford presidents authority to issue sweeping, unilateral tariffs like those imposed by President Trump over the last year.

The justices fractured on other issues. And they left one issue conspicuously unaddressed: What happens to the hundreds of billions of dollars collected from these tariffs so far?

Many of us predicted that the administration would lose this fight. That view was reinforced after oral arguments, when a majority of justices raised possible reasons why the president might not possess this power.

Then again, he does possess similar powers under other laws, which the administration has already announced he will use.

Although Trump said he was “ashamed” of the conservative justices who ruled against him, their opinion is consistent with the conservative interpretive approach taken in prior statutory cases.

The majority defended Congress’s core power over the purse, maintaining the balance among the branches of our tripartite system. There were good-faith arguments on both sides, but these conservative justices ruled regardless of the political or practical repercussions, based on what they believed was demanded by the Constitution.

The most surprising votes were not the three conservatives but the three liberal justices, who historically have not been deterred by ambiguity in statutes in deferring to presidents. They have repeatedly also found delegated authority in independent agencies without worrying too much about the separation of powers.

Democratic politicians openly celebrated from the loss. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) seemed gleeful over the idea that the country will have to incur massive penalties, costs that could undermine the current economic growth figures. Newsom, who has led his state into a deep deficit and triggered an exodus of taxpayers, eagerly called for economic penalties for the country: “Every dollar unlawfully taken must be refunded immediately — with interest. Cough up!”

In reality, the tariffs are not going away. Trump will just have to rely on less nimble laws, but he can pursue the same policies in the name of other causes, such as securing greater market access and other concessions from foreign governments.

So what about “coughing up” those past tariff dollars? Newsom may ultimately be disappointed. Unless members want to further add to the deficit, Congress should intervene to uphold the tariffs retroactively. But that may not be possible.

Democratic politicians like Newsom are not likely to want to help Trump, even if that means wounding the national economy and the federal budget. But this may offer Republicans a unique opportunity to force such a vote. Do Democrats truly want to vote to give hundreds of billions back? There are already more than 1,000 claimants.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh dealt with the problem directly in his forceful dissent. He criticized the majority for its silence on whether or how such refunds would be made. Most pointedly, Kavanaugh noted that the federal government “may be required to refund billions of dollars to importers who paid the … tariffs, even though some importers may have already passed on costs to consumers or others.”

In other words, importers could be double-compensated if they are repaid, since, in many cases, the public paid for the tariffs in the form of higher prices. That is precisely what Democrats have been arguing for months, claiming that prices were raised to cover the added cost of the tariffs.

Trump could therefore further force the issue by offering to pay the money directly to taxpayers as a tariff bonus as part of legislation that would ratify the tariffs. Would Democrats vote against such checks for average citizens? 

Even if Congress does nothing, this will take years to sort out. In the meantime, the administration has already utilized the other tariff powers recognized by the court. 

What is most striking is how the very people calling to pack the Supreme Court are celebrating this decision. The court has once again shown that it continues to exercise independent judgment on important questions. Yet figures from Eric Holder and various liberal pundits will continue to demand court-packing as soon as Democrats retake control of Congress. The tariff decision exposes the dishonesty of their plan. 

Democratic strategist James Carville recently cut away the pretense: “I’m going to tell you what’s going to happen,” he said. “A Democrat is going to be elected in 2028. You know that. I know that. … They’re going to recommend that the number of Supreme Court justices go from nine to 13. That’s going to happen, people.”

It is all about power and radically changing our political system. It does not matter that the Supreme Court continues to rule unanimously or near-unanimously in most cases. It also does not matter that the court continues to rule both for and against the president based on the precedent, not the politics, of cases.

For some, this decision is one of the most resounding demonstrations of the court’s continued independence. But if these Democratic politicians and pundits have their way, that independence may not last much longer.

Jonathan Turley is a law professor and author of the New York Times bestseller “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”

Copyright 2026 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

More Opinions - Judiciary News

McConnell: Congressional role in trade policy ‘not an inconvenience to ...

Johnson says Congress, administration will ‘determine the best path ...

Rand Paul lauds Supreme Court tariff decision: ‘In defense of our Republic’

Hundreds of students suspended, schools under close watch over anti-ICE walkouts

Moreno calls for GOP to codify scuttled Trump tariffs

Bacon signals Trump’s new tariff order ‘will be defeated’ by Congress

Pritzker tells Trump to ‘cut the check’ after tariffs ruling

Susan Rice predicts ‘accountability agenda’ when Democrats are back in power

Vance: Supreme Court tariff decision represents ‘lawlessness from the court’

Trump’s Iran warning gives UK whiplash over Chagos island deal

Trump hikes global tariff to 15 percent after ‘ridiculous’ Supreme Court ...

Maher mocks ‘Karen’ Trump after Supreme Court tariff upset

Massie seeks to undo Trump’s pro-glyphosate executive order

O’Leary says Supreme Court ’caused a nightmare’ with tariff decision

Letitia James takes victory lap after Supreme Court tariffs ruling

Stephen A. Smith knocks Democrats boycotting Trump address: ‘Ticks me off’

Epstein survivor denounces Les Wexner’s deposition before House as ...

Huckabee Sanders on tariffs: Fastest way to get Trump to act is ‘tell him ...

2024 Election Results

2024 Election Forecast

Regulation - Administration

Energy & Environment Video Clips

Health Care Video Clips

Technology Video Clips

Transportation Video Clips

International Video Clips

Cybersecurity Video Clips

National Security Video Clips

Contributors to The Hill

Submit Opinion Content

PRIVACY POLICY 09/30/2025

Advertise with Nexstar

Journalistic Integrity

THE HILL 400 N CAPITOL STREET NW, SUITE 650 WASHINGTON DC 20002

© 1998 - 2026 Nexstar Media Inc. | All Rights Reserved.

Provided by Nexstar Media Group, Inc.

Sign in to create a free account. No password needed.

By clicking on any of the sign up options below, you confirm that you have read and agree to our Terms of Use, which includes a jury trial waiver and class action waiver, and that you have read our Privacy Policy detailing our collection, use and sharing of your personal information.

By clicking on any of the sign up options below, you confirm that you have read and agree to our Terms of Use, which includes a jury trial waiver and class action waiver, and that you have read our Privacy Policy detailing our collection, use and sharing of your personal information.

The Hill is provided by Nexstar Media Group, Inc., and uses the My Nexstar sign-in, which works across our media network.

Learn more at nexstar.tv/privacy-policy.

The Hill is provided by Nexstar Media Group, Inc., and uses the My Nexstar sign-in, which works across our media network.

Nexstar Media Group, Inc. is a leading, diversified media company that produces and distributes engaging local and national news, sports, and entertainment content across its television and digital platforms. The My Nexstar sign-in works across the Nexstar network—including The CW, NewsNation, The Hill, and more. Learn more at nexstar.tv/privacy-policy.

Provided by Nexstar Media Group, Inc.

Check your email inbox

Provided by Nexstar Media Group, Inc.

Thanks for registering!

Provided by Nexstar Media Group, Inc.

Are you sure you want to log out?

© The Hill