Gov. Shapiro blasts Trump's tariff policy after Supreme Court rebuke

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: ABC News

February 22, 2026, 9:36 AM


After the Supreme Court invalidated most of President Donald Trump's sweeping tariff policy, Pennsylvania Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro said that the president's signature economic agenda has hurt the American people. "I wish he would just adhere to the Supreme Court's ruling and stop the pain for the American people," Shapiro told ABC News' "This Week" co-anchor Martha Raddatz in an interview aired Sunday.

In a 6-3 decision on Friday, the court dealt a major blow to the president's economic agenda. The court's ruling deemed that the International Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) did not give Trump the power to impose tariffs unilaterally.

Following the court's decision, Trump imposed a 15% global tariff, using Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. "Other alternatives will now be used to replace the ones that the court incorrectly rejected," Trump said Friday.

Shapiro, who was at the White House for a governor's meeting when the court's decision was released, said he witnessed Trump's first reaction. "He was going on and on about other topics, and an aide interrupted him, handed him a note. He read the note, he asked the aide if that meant, I think he said, 'We lost?' as a question, the aide nodded in affirmation. He called it a disgrace," Shapiro said.

Read more: https://abcnews.com/Politics/gov-shapiro-blasts-trumps-tariff-policy-after-supreme/story?id=130382811

[Bluetus]

1. The "1974 act" move might be doomed also

I am not a lawyer, so use a grain of salt. However, it seems that this SCOTUS ruling was exceptionally straightforward. Dean Obeidallah (who is a lawyer) observed that Roberts' opinion (representing the 6 majority justices) was less than 20 pages, which is on the short side. And Roberts was clear the Court are about economic experts or foreign trade experts. Their job is to rule on the constitutionality and legality of actions.

To summarize, the majority opinion is simple, saying that the Constitution is perfectly clear that only Congress has the authority to impose taxes, and (importantly) tariffs are taxes. Further, there is nothing on the law that Trump cites that gives him the authority to impose tariffs except in extraordinary emergencies. And the court found there was nothing extraordinary.

The point is that this is very clear legal precedent now. Trump immediately put out an EO to impose a 10% tariff on the entire world, arguing the 1974 law enables that. That law says that the tariffs can only remain 150 days unless Congress acts, and they won't in an election year. So most of the commentary I have seen says that the tariffs will last for 5 months and then go away.

I think that may be wrong. People expect legal challenges almost immediately, but many of the commentaries I have seen says that will take years to litigate. I'm not so sure, and remember I am not a lawyer. However, with such a clear decision from the SCOTUS, it seems to me very possible that a court will grant an injunction against Trump's EO on the basis that Trump is very likely to lose again. In other words, the clarity of the Roberts opinion, and the fact that it was a large majority (6-3) looks like an invitation for a lower court to grant an injunction, a circuit court to validate that, and SCOTUS to refuse to intervene.

The key question is whether the 1974 law is any more explicit in giving this power to the President. I think it is not. Under the 1974, the President has limited authority, but only under one of these conditions: unfair foreign trade practices (Section 301), injury to domestic industries (Section 201), or balance-of-payments deficits (Section 122). And they all require findings of fact by appropriate agencies, which has not been done. That, alone should support an injunction.

There is no evidence of unusual trade deficits, so forget that one. And the other two imply problems with specific countries, industries, or products. But Trump did a BLANKET 10%, meaning he has a problem with every country, every industry and every product. That is complete nonsense. So I don't see how a court could NOT grant the injunction.

I suppose there is a question of standing. Normally it should be Congress that sues because ultimately it is their power that Trump is usurping. But we all know Congress won't do this. However, I would think that just about any importer could have standing, and that is exactly what happened in the case decided Friday.