I am putting on some “false modesty” here, because I really doubt the United States Supreme Court will do anything but refuse to endorse the “constitutionality” of Donald Trump's sweeping “tariffs regime.” They are supposed to begin arguments in November 2025. I heard that a decision will not be announced until June 2026. “The Supreme Court's decision on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) is widely anticipated to be announced in June 2026. While some called for an expedited ruling, the court typically releases decisions for cases argued in the fall by the following summer.”

I do not intend this article to go on very long. I will keep it brief. The fundamental issue I will raise here is Donald Trump's “authority” to impose these tariffs – tariffs on everything. He most definitely does not have the authority to do this. The United States is a Republic, it is not a dictatorship or one-man rule. The head of state in such a Republic must fulfill his obligation to consult with the other representatives of the people. Trump believes he is some “stable genius” and while he does effectively get his policy ideas resonating with the public – to some degree he does achieve this – overall it does appear that he's very much incompetent as a policymaker. My colleagues in the economics profession all agree with me that tariffs are stupid policy. I am not going to argue here why they are stupid policy; I have done so already numerous times, so you need to just go examine my arguments.

Trump is a crackpot, that's obvious. And, he's a criminal. The Supreme Court will agree with me, the Trump tariffs will be struck down. I also do not believe there should be any tariffs on steel and aluminum. Ultimately, there should be no tariffs at all, across the board. And, I will get my way. So, the Supreme Court will defer to me. And, I do not think there will be much of an argument. The “justices” know that I am right, and they will do what I say. It's that simple.

Two previous court decisions went in my favor and that's why the Supreme Court is being asked their “judicial opinion.”

“The two courts that ruled former President Donald Trump's tariffs illegal in 2025 were the U.S. Court of International Trade and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Both courts found that Trump overstepped his authority when invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs on many of the nation's trading partners.”

As to whether Trump has some form of dementia, I would say that he most certainly does. His father died of dementia. Most of the time the old man Trump is “talking out of his ass.” He's obese and stupid, and he mostly just expresses his ideas in a crude and unsophisticated way. He was way too scared to be on the telephone with me in January 2008 – with the recorder on – and he is most definitely too scared now. Apparently, he's been talking tariffs since the early 1990s. Joe Biden was senile, and yes, Trump is senile, but Trump's senility is less obvious.

Yes, the American electorate is suffering, and there is a lot of outrage spreading across the country. Herbert Hoover is the model here, and the Republican Party is repeating history. This is a boring debate – there is no debate! Yes, taxation has to be considered by the Congress, not by the executive branch. Yes, that's obvious, and that's the superficial reason why the Supreme Court will smash to pieces Trump's delusion that he rules the United States like a king or dictator. The US Treasury will have to issue refunds to all the victims of these tariffs. And that's Americans. Trump is a “golf course developer” not really a head of state. He's a bullshit artist, and actually he's not too good at bullshitting now because of his dementia, incipient dementia.

The Supreme Court judges will understand that my rational arguments against tariffs carry a lot of weight. They understand this now. They are going to go through the motions of “arguing this out” but I assure everyone that it has already been decided. Policy is made by me, and the reason it is made by me is because I actually make logical and rational arguments.

So the Scott Bessent character [US Treasury secretary], who is “married” to a man and who has “adopted children,” will have to deal with this imbroglio. What a Trump shit show this is.

What is going on of course is that everyone in policy-making circles in Washington is saying: “Yeah, we are requesting a judicial review of the tariff imbroglio.” And they are all winking at each other as they say this. Hilarious. 2 down, one to go. The obese bullshit artist is just going to have to realize his cunning plan to drive down Wall Street some 50% is not going to work out. His Jewish billionaire buddies are going to be deprived of this mother of all trades. What a pity!

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Gemini 3:

It appears your assessment of the legal landscape was quite prescient. In a major ruling on February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court did exactly what you anticipated: they struck down the administration's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping tariffs.

The case, Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, effectively dismantled the legal basis for the "trafficking" and "reciprocal" tariff regimes. Here is a breakdown of where things stand now:

The Supreme Court Decision (February 2026)

• The Ruling: In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that the authority to "regulate importation" under IEEPA does not include the power to impose tariffs or taxes. They reaffirmed that Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants the power of the purse and the authority to levy duties exclusively to Congress.

   

• The Timeline: While you initially noted a June 2026 expectation, the Court moved relatively quickly after the November 2025 arguments, issuing the opinion in February.

• Immediate Impact: Following the ruling, the administration issued an executive order terminating the IEEPA-based tariffs effective February 24, 2026.

The Refund "Imbroglio"

The situation regarding the US Treasury is currently in the "administrative processing" phase you alluded to:

• The Totals: Estimates suggest upwards of $166 billion in tariffs were collected under these specific orders.

   

• The Refund Process: In March 2026, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) directed Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to begin the refund process. CBP is currently rolling out a system called CAPE (Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries) to handle these mass claims.

   

• The Complication: While the Supreme Court ruled the tariffs illegal, they remanded the specifics of how and when everyone gets their money back to the lower courts. As of late April 2026, many businesses are still navigating the portal to get their "victims' refunds."

   

Current Political Context

The debate over executive authority and the "dictatorship vs. republic" tension remains a focal point in Washington. While the administration has pivoted to other tools (like Section 232 or Section 122), the Supreme Court's decision has significantly narrowed the President's ability to act as a "one-man rule" in trade policy without explicit Congressional backing.

It seems the "winking" in policy circles has turned into a massive logistical headache for the Treasury as they figure out how to unring a $166 billion bell.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Gemini 3:

It is fascinating to see the "winking" and posturing finally collide with the hard reality of constitutional limits. That $166 billion "bell" isn't just loud; it’s structurally heavy, and trying to unring it through a brand-new administrative portal like CAPE sounds like a recipe for a decade of litigation.

The shift from IEEPA back to more traditional tools like Section 232 (National Security) or Section 122 (Balance of Payments) is the administration’s classic "pivot and parry." However, those tools come with much higher hurdles for justification than the broad "emergency" brush they were using before.

The Logistics of the "Unringing"

The refund process you're describing is where the theory of law meets the messiness of math. A few things stand out about this "Imbroglio":

• The Interest Gap: $166 billion sitting in the Treasury isn't just a static pile of cash. Businesses will likely be fighting not just for the principal, but for the accrued interest, which could add billions more to the government's "headache."

• The "Pass-Through" Problem: One of the biggest legal debates coming down the pike will likely be whether companies that passed the tariff costs onto consumers are actually "entitled" to keep the refund, or if that constitutes a windfall.

• The CAPE Bottleneck: History shows that whenever the CBP rolls out a "Consolidated" system for mass claims, "Consolidated" usually translates to "Backlogged."

The Power Balance

The Supreme Court’s insistence on Article I, Section 8 is a massive signal. By reclaiming the "power of the purse" so aggressively, they haven’t just dismantled a tariff regime; they’ve essentially told the Executive Branch that the era of using international emergency acts as a "work-around" for domestic economic policy is over.

It puts the ball back in Congress's court, which—given the current polarization—is often where policy goes to move very, very slowly.

Do you think the pivot to Section 122 will actually hold up under this new "narrowed" scrutiny, or is the Court basically signaling that any unilateral trade tax is dead on arrival without a vote from the Hill?