Special Episode: Trump's Tariffs Struck Down

From The New York Times, I'm Natalie Kitroeff. This is a special episode of The Daily. We have a breaking news alert for you. It's finally here. The Supreme Court has made a decision on president Trump's tariffs. This is a huge case, a big ruling. It comes to mind. Today, in a historic six three decision, the Supreme Court has ruled that president Trump's sweeping global tariffs are illegal, jeopardizing a pillar of the president's second term. It is invalidating what is the cornerstone of president Trump's economic policy, sweeping implications for the economy, and, of course, for presidential power. This is a massive devastating and consequential blow for this administration. It's also a rare rebuke, of I spoke with my colleague, Adam Liptak, about the legal logic of the ruling and its potentially seismic impacts. It's Friday, February 20. Adam, thank you for taking time to speak with us today on a very busy news day. It's good to be here. So we're coming to you on a Friday afternoon because something quite extraordinary has happened on the Supreme Court. The court has struck down many of president Trump's tariffs. These tariffs aren't just at the core of his economic policy. Sense that the court might rule this way, the reality of it actually happening in this moment hits much differently. Is that how you're seeing it? Well, this is a court that's been very favorable to president Trump. But here we have the first major argued merits decision on really the centerpiece of a domestic and international program. And the court says that the main statute he relies on does not authorize him to do what he wants to do. So this is a major blow from a court that not everyone expected to stand up to president Trump. Okay. I wanna dig into the specifics of the decision, why the court ruled the way it did. Can you just walk me through what the majority's reasoning was for rejecting these tariffs? So this case is about a congressional statute. The International Emergency Economic Powers Act. So this is not about the constitution. It's about whether congress has, under this law, authorized presidents to impose tariffs. And it's always been a stretch because this law doesn't include the word tariffs or a synonym like duties. Instead, it's kind of a word salad that includes a lot of words, and the administration is focused on two of those words, the regulation of importation. And even those words are separated by 16 other words. And chief justice Roberts, writing for six justices, says that just doesn't bear the weight that the administration wants to place on it, that Congress has the power to tax, and tariffs are, of course, an import tax. And Congress, if it wants to authorize the president, can, but it didn't here. And regulation is not the same as taxation, chief justice Roberts says. So he thinks this is a fairly straightforward grammatical exercise. The …