Althouse: Listen to the live Supreme Court argument in the tariffs case.

November 5, 2025

Listen to the live Supreme Court argument in the tariffs case.

Here, now.

67 comments:

Achilles said...: I have to work. Look forward to the transcript.

Curious how the globalists are going to try to get around decades of precedent.; 11/5/25, 9:10 AM
Dave Begley said...: I bet $100 on Kalshi that Trump wins this case.; 11/5/25, 9:15 AM
mccullough said...: Another case about Congress handing over its power to the President instead of the Supreme Court.

Separation of powers died a long time ago.; 11/5/25, 9:26 AM
Left Bank of the Charles said...: If a President can use emergency powers to impose taxes, where does that end? What is the limiting principle?; 11/5/25, 9:38 AM
Sweetie said...: The lawyer industry will surely shine today /s; 11/5/25, 10:01 AM
Wince said...: Left Bank of the Charles said...
If a President can use emergency powers to impose taxes, where does that end? What is the limiting principle?

When it applies to the exercise of foreign policy and specifically negotiating trade agreements, perhaps.; 11/5/25, 10:14 AM
Kakistocracy said...: Court conservatives suddenly worried about the expansion of executive power for the first time this century.

Gorsuch: “So congress as a practical matter, can't get this power back once it's handed it over to the president.. one way ratchet toward the gradual but continual accretion of power in the executive branch and away from the people's elected representatives.”; 11/5/25, 10:20 AM
Howard said...: When did Martin Scorsese become US Solicitor General?; 11/5/25, 10:23 AM
Kakistocracy said...: Justice Gorsuch throws fastballs about the ramifications of Trump's position:

He asks what would happen if Congress said: "We're tired of this legislating business. We're just going to hand this all to the president. What stops them from doing it?"

In his line of questioning, Gorsuch points out that it would take a veto-proof supermajority for Congress to get its power back once it has been handed to the executive.

We’ll see what happens once the lawyers challenging the tariffs take a swing, but so far, this is looking like a bloodbath against Trump's tariffs.; 11/5/25, 10:25 AM
Howard said...: In some ways this is a nuclear option like the cancellation of the filibuster rule in the Senate. Right now you are happy to give these powers to president Trump. Will you still be happy when someone like Gavin Newscum is able to wield such unreviewable and unbridled authority?; 11/5/25, 10:25 AM
rehajm said...: I’m not listening but took a look at the SCOTUSBlog coverage. They’re garnering a big ignorant audience, looking like people going for the dopamine hit of a Trump loss. ‘We NEED a quick decision!!’ ‘What’s the record for quick turnaround by SCOTUS?’ …bah!; 11/5/25, 10:28 AM
narciso said...: Well its the scotus blog from the bulwinkle people; 11/5/25, 10:34 AM
rehajm said...: yah they must have a link to the live blog over there; 11/5/25, 10:48 AM
Breezy said...: If Congress truly wants their power back, they can collect a supermajority to do so, regardless of who the President is.; 11/5/25, 10:56 AM
Inga said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 11/5/25, 11:05 AM
Inga said...: What a mess it will be if and when the SC rules against Trump’s tariff scheme. The Treasury would be scrambling to give at least half of the tariff money back to the importers. Trump created a shit show and now the Country is having to clean it up. Republicans in Congress should be ashamed to have given the Executive their powers under the Constitution; 11/5/25, 11:06 AM
Breezy said...: The law that Trump relies on, IEEPA, was passed in late 1977 virtually unanimously, and signed by Carter. This was a power given to the President by both parties and signed by Democrat President.

Grok:
Voting on IEEPA: The bill (S. 2412) passed the Senate unanimously (voice vote) on July 27, 1977, and the House by a vote of 401–2 on December 13, 1977. It then went to conference and was approved by both chambers in late December before presidential signature. The overwhelming bipartisan support aligned with the lopsided Democratic majorities.; 11/5/25, 11:17 AM
Gerda Sprinchorn said...: Thanks for the link. Very interesting.; 11/5/25, 11:28 AM
mccullough said...: Who cares if it was Bi-Partisan. Most stupid shit is.

The Supreme Court long ago rejected to Congress delegating its power to the President and the Administrative State, which long ago became The Fourth Branch of the federal government.

The Court should have said that Congress can create administrative agencies to enforce the law and to recommend laws. But Congress has to enact the law.

Trump’s best argument here is that tariffs are part of foreign relations, not just foreign commerce, and the President has exclusive authority over foreign relations in the Constitution.; 11/5/25, 11:31 AM
Inga said...: Why has no other president used IEEPA to impose tariffs on a broad basis the way Trump did?; 11/5/25, 11:32 AM
Gerda Sprinchorn said...: Plaintiff's attorney in trouble late in the game. He admits that IEEPA gives the President the power to shut down all trade with every other country (via the licensing power in IEPPA). But earlier, the same attorney was arguing that Trump's tariffs are way bigger than what Congress meant to authorize.

Looks like Plaintiffs will have to rely on the argument that the current "emergency" isn't really an emergency in the sense IEPPA intended. I find this argument much more more convincing.; 11/5/25, 11:33 AM
Gerda Sprinchorn said...: Further, IEPPA allows "regulation" of international trade. The interstate regulation clause of the Constitution has been stretched to permit almost any action by the Federal Government, so this is a problem for Plaintiffs too.; 11/5/25, 11:34 AM
Gerda Sprinchorn said...: The Justices seem to really be focusing on the shut-down-trade-to-the-rest-of-the-world point.; 11/5/25, 11:35 AM
AMDG said...: mccullough said...
Who cares if it was Bi-Partisan. Most stupid shit is.

The Supreme Court long ago rejected to Congress delegating its power to the President and the Administrative State, which long ago became The Fourth Branch of the federal government.

The Court should have said that Congress can create administrative agencies to enforce the law and to recommend laws. But Congress has to enact the law.

Trump’s best argument here is that tariffs are part of foreign relations, not just foreign commerce, and the President has exclusive authority over foreign relations in the Constitution.

11/5/25, 11:31 AM

———————————————-

Tariffs assessed to the importer, not the exporter so how is that part of foreign relations?; 11/5/25, 11:37 AM
Gerda Sprinchorn said...: Plaintiff's attorney keeps saying "tariffing" is different than regulation. Some other Justices are trying to support this argument.; 11/5/25, 11:39 AM
Mike (MJB Wolf) said...: Screw Scotusblog. Listen directly from the court here:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx; 11/5/25, 11:41 AM
Gerda Sprinchorn said...: Sounds like each side on the Court has enough grounds to rule they way they wanted to going in.; 11/5/25, 11:42 AM
Big Mike said...: Dick Cheney and George W. Bush preferred to fight wars with cruise missiles and smart bombs. Trump prefers to fight them using American economic power before they erupt into shooting wars. I like Trump’s approach better. Wars get to be expensive, especially when you try to fight them with peacetime admirals and generals.; 11/5/25, 11:43 AM
Mike (MJB Wolf) said...: Why has no other president used IEEPA to impose tariffs on a broad basis the way Trump did?

They were afraid of China, unlike Trump. Trump recognized that the rest of the world could and would pay a premium of 15% or so to sell goods to the USA. Other presidents have used similar schemes, like Nixon's across-the-board 10% tariff but that was pre-IEEPA yet it stood too.

However, the punitive tariffs wielded in response to EU protectionism and Canada intransigence may be at risk. Other presidents, especially Obama and Biden far undervalued America. Trump saw that the non-tariff trade barriers the rest of the world uses could be our reciprocal answer to VAT. He was right. Despite an average of 15% imposed, imports only rose about 1% in cost to US consumers.; 11/5/25, 11:47 AM
Breezy said...: The gist of the plaintiff argument is that tariffs raise revenue. They may do so, but they encourage both domestic and foreign sellers and buyers to avoid paying anything. To do that, they need to manufacture in the US, and buy US products. In the end, the tariff is a carrot and a stick to re-balance trade to favor US, where we’ve been on the short side for decades.

Other presidents didn’t fight for or make better trade deals for the US some reason.; 11/5/25, 11:53 AM
Inga said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 11/5/25, 11:56 AM
Inga said...: “They were afraid of China, unlike Trump.’

LOL. And what has Trump’s trade war with China accomplished? Farmers going broke because China isn’t buying soybeans at the rate it did under other presidents? Americans are paying a lot more for goods imported from China in a time when groceries are almost unaffordable.; 11/5/25, 11:57 AM
Peachy said...: I agree with what Trump is doing.

Congress will never get it done. You can find past Democratic statements from people like Schumer admitting that tariffs are unfair and unbalanced. That said - democrats prefer to tax US citizens first, second, third, ... A-z last and up the wazoo.; 11/5/25, 12:11 PM
Peachy said...: Screw China and the sell-out Dems who profited mightily off of out-sourcing our labor and manufacturing base and markets to China.. We need to bring all that manufacturing back to the US.
Leftists whine - no matter what - but were dead silent after Biden's actions and money printing kicked inflation into the stratosphere.; 11/5/25, 12:15 PM
Inga said...: “That said - democrats prefer to tax US citizens first, second, third…”

And just WHO do you think are paying for these tariffs? You think the importers will just eat the tariffs without passing it along to America buyers? Oh brother…; 11/5/25, 12:23 PM
Peachy said...: Inag - the goal of Trump was to remove the Tariffs WE were paying and level the playing field.; 11/5/25, 12:26 PM
Kevin said...: Why has no other president used IEEPA to impose tariffs on a broad basis the way Trump did?

Because the globalists taught past Presidents it didn't matter if your country made potato chips or computer chips.; 11/5/25, 12:26 PM
narciso said...: The dilemma has been long in coming; 11/5/25, 12:27 PM
Kevin said...: And just WHO do you think are paying for these tariffs? You think the importers will just eat the tariffs without passing it along to America buyers? Oh brother…

You think Americans pay 100% of the tariffs? Oh brother...; 11/5/25, 12:27 PM
Dave Begley said...: The conventional wisdom is that oral argument doesn't matter that much. I agree.

I didn't do a very good job in my last NE S. Ct case, but I won anyway.; 11/5/25, 12:29 PM
Leland said...: Why has no other president used IEEPA to impose tariffs on a broad basis the way Trump did?

Does "broad basis" mean something to you? Because I don't know what it means in regards to the law, and if you take it out: "Why has no other president used IEEPA to impose tariffs the way Trump did?" Answer: They have.; 11/5/25, 12:29 PM
Kakistocracy said...: Betting market odds for SCOTUS letting Trump keep his tariffs have tanked.; 11/5/25, 12:29 PM
narciso said...: They ask stupid questions?; 11/5/25, 12:31 PM
Kakistocracy said...: I’ll go out on a limb here:

SCOTUS rules 7-2 against Trump on IEEPA tariffs

Majority opinion by Roberts, Barrett, Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson

Separate concurring opinions from Gorsuch, Kavanaugh

Thomas, Alito dissent

Refund process will be somewhat convoluted.; 11/5/25, 12:31 PM
Kevin said...: Betting market odds for SCOTUS letting Trump keep his tariffs have tanked.

I don't think SCOTUS should get into the business of defining what is and isn't an "emergency". Better to let Congress do that, even if it requires a supermajority.; 11/5/25, 12:34 PM
Steven said...: It appears that the supreme court will affirm the American people's right to engage commerce, unless their representatives in the congress consent to restrictions. I am glad to see it.

It is also gratifying to see the left suddenly become big proponents of free trade. I hope this will lead to an era of libertarian comity when the Republicans tire of the magas' lawlessness.; 11/5/25, 12:35 PM
Kakistocracy said...: It’s like Sauer thinks saying “It’s a regulatory tariff not a tax” is a get out of jail free card, and the justices ain’t having it. Makes listening to Sauer’s voice and incoherent rambling so worth it.; 11/5/25, 12:38 PM
Inga said...: “You think Americans pay 100% of the tariffs? Oh brother...”

“The percentage of tariffs that importers pass along to buyers varies, but recent studies from 2025 indicate that the pass-through rate to U.S. consumers is typically between 60% and 80%, and in some cases is expected to be nearly 100% over time.”

Gemini; 11/5/25, 12:39 PM
Inga said...: “Refund process will be somewhat convoluted.”

Yes, thanks to Trump and a cowardly Republican Party.; 11/5/25, 12:42 PM
n.n said...: Tariffs compensate for labor and environmental arbitrage that provide incentives for outsourcing, insourcing, Green deals, immigration reform, and planned parenthood.; 11/5/25, 12:45 PM
DINKY DAU 45 said...: On a wagering upswing I see
SCOTUS upholds lower court rulings (tariffs overturned) Moderate to High Refunds, price drops, trade reset
SCOTUS partially overturns (some tariffs remain) Moderate Mixed relief, selective refunds, I am wagering on 58% of situation #1 More likely, I am wagering 73% on situation #2 at 22-1 Mixed relief with moderate payback and minimum relief from trumps biggest Republican tax raise on the American people EVER? Its never over thoughwith the trump in the tank SCOTUS so more to be revealed. Neil Katyal (however you spell that) is a master craftsman,the other guy has a grating, whiny voice that alone should exclude his rhetoric. 3 lower courts all deemed illegal,SCOTUS AGREES in these numbers.This whole deal is BEAUCOUP DINKY DAU!; 11/5/25, 12:45 PM
Dave Begley said...: All you people making predictions about this case can go to the prediction markets (e.g. Kalshi) and place your money bets.; 11/5/25, 12:47 PM
Dave Begley said...: Trump's chance of winning tanked to 29% after the oral argument.; 11/5/25, 12:48 PM
narciso said...: Katyal who let bin ladens go free; 11/5/25, 12:49 PM
Wince said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 11/5/25, 12:54 PM
rehajm said...: ..all so much fun but critical of you for losing sight of why tariffs are there- because foreign markets are closed to us makers or there are tariffs or quotas on foreigners import of us goods. To squee get Trump forgets that these arrangements
harms Americans…; 11/5/25, 12:57 PM
Yancey Ward said...: "Will you still be happy when someone like Gavin Newscum is able to wield such unreviewable and unbridled authority?"

No, I would not be happy but I suspect even if SCOTUS kills this tariff power as an illegitimate delegation of congressional authority, the Democrats will just endorse such taxing power when they are in power again by simply packing the court with enough justices to rule it legitimate in the future. What you really need is a constitutional amendment that declares that Congress and only Congress can add and raise all revenues and that Congress must pass these revenue measures every single fiscal year for all taxes, new and old.; 11/5/25, 1:00 PM
Wince said...: Kakistocracy said...
Justice Gorsuch throws fastballs about the ramifications of Trump's position... In his line of questioning, Gorsuch points out that it would take a veto-proof supermajority for Congress to get its power back once it has been handed to the executive.

Okay. But that supermajority hurdle applies to all aspects of the IEEPA, not just as tariffs, doesn't it? And all statutory law for that matter.

Hence, I don't see that argument raised by Gorsuch's question being dispositive as to whether there's a constitutional limit on the ability of congress to delegate its authority to the president to impose tariffs under the IEEPA.

For that reason, I suspect the outcome of this case will likely be decided based on statutory interpretation of "emergency" and its scope under the IEEPA, rather than constitutional separation of powers.; 11/5/25, 1:01 PM
n.n said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 11/5/25, 1:03 PM
Dave Begley said...: Correction: Trump's chance of winning tanked to 39% after oral argument.; 11/5/25, 1:06 PM
Wince said...: The scope of "emergency" will be defined by SCOTUS and there will be no refunds of tariffs.; 11/5/25, 1:07 PM
Dr Weevil said...: Dave Begley (12:48pm):
Do we trust the prediction markets? Aren't they easily manipulated? I haven't been watching, but 'unseen1' on Twitter has, and here's his conclusion. Everything that follows is him, not me (link):

- - - - - - - - - - -

Final thoughts on the oral arguments. The only justice that was 100% for the opposition was Justice Jackson. Both Kagan and Sotomayor had some moments where they agreed with Trump's case. Sotomayor is probably a firm, no though. Kagan, I'm not sure. It's probably a no also.

Alito, Kavanaugh, and Thomas all are a firm, yes.

Roberts was pretty neutral and could go either way.

Barrett and Gorsuch started leaning as a no, but the opposition arguments were so bad that by the end, I think both were leaning towards yes.

So I could see any outcome for a yes from 8-2 to 5-4.

If they do rule against Trump, I can't see it as more than a 6-3 decision and most likely a 5-4.

If I had to make a bet, it would be in Trump's favor and a 6-3, but it's important to note that this case isn't just about the merits of the case. There are a lot of politics and $$trillions at stake, so it's really anyone's guess at this point what the final decision will be. Im sure the trump admin is making plans for either decision, and I doubt the case will stop him if they rule against him.

He could simply place sanctions on the world and stop all trade. Seriously, knowing what type of power he has at his disposal, I doubt they really want to rock the boat and throw away peace deals, trade deals, and plunge the country into 2+ trillion deficits again.

This case isn't really about Trump. It's about America's position in the world and the powers between the exec and congressional branches and which branch controls foreign affairs. Congress has a way to solve the issue, so the court will probably punt it to them.; 11/5/25, 1:08 PM
Wince said...: Dave Begley said...
Correction: Trump's chance of winning tanked to 39% after oral argument.

There is no dichotomous "win-lose" if SCOTUS treats the matter as one of statutory interpretation and splits the baby.; 11/5/25, 1:09 PM
Yancey Ward said...: In other words, Democrats would be completely happy to grant a President the power to tax carbon from all sources outside the U.S. There are few intellectually honest people on this issue. Had Joe Biden declared a climate emergency and used tarriffs to tax China's carbon inputs to their exports to the U.S., you would find the political parties on opposite sides of this case.

With that out of the way, I have long thought Trump is going to lose this case as an illegitimate delegation of power by Congress. I think that is exactly what the majority will write as a decision but it will be a majority in which the 3 Democrats write a separate opinion that Trump's emergency declaration doesn't fit the law and the Republican justices overturn the ability to raise taxes on an emergency basis altogether.; 11/5/25, 1:10 PM
Dr Weevil said...: Then again, 'unseen1' is a smart guy, but not perfect: I'd be willing to bet a lot of money that the result will not be 8-2 for Trump, but I don't think the betting markets will allow me to do that. Whether he meant 8-1 or 7-2, I don't know.; 11/5/25, 1:11 PM
hanuman_prodigious_leaper said...: who was allowed to 'standing' in SC for this?; 11/5/25, 1:18 PM
Christopher B said...: Does the President have a similar power regarding immigration? Because I can't see much of a difference between interpreting 'emergency' in this case and 'asylum' in such a way as to let 10 million people cross the border.; 11/5/25, 1:30 PM