{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreiclpbp7n7e6mx6lp6afceach5pw3ffan7i46peky3x34fzfpmxnm4",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:qefo6jhzy4lvocnzakfk7rbi/app.bsky.feed.post/3mfcjucvylwx2"
  },
  "coverImage": {
    "$type": "blob",
    "ref": {
      "$link": "bafkreicx4bmyadwrdwwuo3am2ag4qdwy47adnj3rovqjdz363epxo2t27m"
    },
    "mimeType": "image/jpeg",
    "size": 248376
  },
  "path": "/post/205430/supreme-court-donald-trump-tariff-ruling",
  "publishedAt": "2026-02-20T15:05:27.000Z",
  "site": "https://newrepublic.com",
  "tags": [
    "Breaking News",
    "Politics",
    "Republican Party",
    "Donald Trump",
    "Supreme Court",
    "Supreme Court Watch",
    "Economy",
    "tariffs",
    "Trade",
    "Trade War",
    "trump trade war",
    "food prices",
    "International Emergency Economic Powers Act",
    "improved trade deals",
    "neither binding nor permanent",
    "hurt U.S. manufacturing",
    "driven up prices",
    "strained relationships with U.S. allies",
    "claimed",
    "announced",
    "_The New York Times_"
  ],
  "textContent": "The Supreme Court ruled Friday to undo Donald Trump’s illegal Liberation Day tariffs, taking away the president’s favorite toy after he used it to hit his allies.\n\nTrump imposed his so-called “reciprocal tariffs” in April 2025 using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a rule that allows the president to regulate commerce in case of a national emergency—but doesn’t actually include the word “tariff.”\n\nThe Trump administration initially claimed that the “reciprocal tariffs” were simply a tool to negotiate improved trade deals with other countries in order to promote domestic manufacturing and thwart drug trafficking.\n\nBut it quickly became clear that the deals were neither binding nor permanent. In reality, Trump’s tariffs were intended to be ever-changing, a whip to extend across the world at his whim. The results? Trump has hurt U.S. manufacturing, driven up prices, and strained relationships with U.S. allies.\n\nTrump claimed in mid-January that should the Supreme Court rule against his tariff policy, the U.S. would be forced to “pay back … Hundreds of Billions of Dollars” in investments made by companies and countries hoping to avoid his steep tariffs.\n\n“When these Investments are added, we are talking about Trillions of Dollars!” Trump wrote. “It would be a complete mess, and almost impossible for our country to pay.”\n\nTrump announced later that week that he planned to ratchet up tariffs on several European Union countries if they did not allow a deal for the United States to purchase Greenland from Denmark.\n\nTrade Representative Jamieson Greer told _The New York Times_ on January 19 that in the case of an unfavorable decision, Trump planned to simply ignore the ruling. He would impose a new set of tariffs that will “start the next day” in order “to respond to the problems the president has identified.”\n\n _This is a developing story._",
  "title": "Supreme Court Hands Trump Stunning Loss Over Tariffs"
}