Trump Hit with Fatal Blow as SCOTUS Ruling Haunts Him!!!

Summary

Legal AF by MeidasTouch: “Trump Hit with Fatal Blow as SCOTUS Ruling Haunts Him!!!”

Date: May 8, 2026
Host: Michael Popok (MeidasTouch Network)

---

Episode Overview

This episode of Legal AF zeroes in on a major legal setback for Donald Trump regarding his ongoing attempts to impose tariffs via executive power. Civil rights attorney and host Michael Popok explains how a recent Court of International Trade decision definitively blocks Trump’s latest strategy to introduce new tariffs after previous efforts were already struck down by the Supreme Court. Popok provides deep historical context, legal reasoning behind the ruling, and vivid insight into what this means for American consumers, global trade, and Trump’s political ambitions.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Court of International Trade Ruling on Trump Tariffs

[01:52 – 07:32]

• Popok reports that the Court of International Trade has, in a 2-1 decision, struck down Trump’s attempt to use Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act to impose tariffs, citing the same constitutional flaws as prior rulings.
• "Tariffs are bad for the global economy. They're bad for the US Economy. They're not generating any money that can fill the hole that's created by Donald Trump's immoral regressive tax scheme that taxes the middle class to give tax breaks to the rich." (Michael Popok, 02:52)
• The court found that Trump was incorrectly trying to argue a “balance of payments” problem where only a “balance of trade” issue existed—two distinct legal thresholds.
• Popok details the function of the Court of International Trade, a specialist court that rarely enters mainstream discussion but is now pivotal in the Trump-era legal landscape.

---

2. The Constitutional and Historical Backdrop

[04:00 – 10:30]

• The episode dives into Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution: only Congress can lay tariffs and taxes, though it can delegate this power specifically and expressly.
• "You can't just... be ambiguous like, well, I wonder if Congress wanted the President to have that power. If you're... asking that question and scratching your head, then it's not a proper delegation." (Michael Popok, 04:21)
• Popok explains the origins of the 1974 Trade Act, designed after the U.S. left the gold standard, to address currency value fluctuations—not generic trade deficits.
• The distinction:
  • Balance of Payments: Fluctuations in currency affect real costs of international payments.
  • Balance of Trade: Differences in volume/value of import/export of goods; not about currency per se.
• Trump tried to exploit a provision meant for rare currency crises to justify broad tariffs for trade deficits—something the court determined is outside the law’s intent.

---

3. Ruling Details & Implications

[10:31 – 14:15]

• The court emphasized that the necessary statutorily-defined “fundamental international payments problem” did not exist; thus, Section 122 powers could not be invoked.
• "The unique circumstances that allows a president to invoke Section 122 tariffs is not anywhere present here... we have a balance of trade issue about goods, but we don't have a balance of payments issue about money." (Michael Popok, 11:15)
• The immediate impact is that Trump’s replacement tariffs are invalid, benefitting American importers and consumers by removing hundreds of billions in extra costs.
• Importers now face complex refund processes to reclaim as much as $170 billion in previously collected tariffs; some companies plan refunds, others may not pass savings to consumers.
• Trump is already seeking alternative strategies, including Commerce Department hearings, but these are unlikely to yield comparable revenue, underlining the political and fiscal ramifications.

---

4. Broader Economic and Legal Impact

[13:40 – 14:59]

• Popok posits that removing the tariffs is ultimately positive for the American consumer, even if Trump refuses to admit defeat.
• He forecasts the Justice Department will lose again in appeals and that the Supreme Court is unlikely to reverse the current consensus.
• "These tariffs and their elimination may actually benefit America. Yet Donald Trump won't take no for an answer." (Michael Popok, 13:57)
• The episode underscores the importance of this ruling for voters and the overall economy.

---

Notable Quotes

• “He can't plug the hole by going after our allies and enemies alike with another 10% up to 15% tariff.”
  (Michael Popok, 03:30)

• "Balance of payments doesn't mean balance of trade. Balance of trade... is a goods inventory issue, if you will, which is at the heart of this case."
  (Michael Popok, 05:44)

• “The opinion... goes through how we got to the 1974 Trade act, starting first with Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution, which gives Congress the sole power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, which are translated as tariffs.”
  (Michael Popok, 08:06)

---

Important Timestamps

• 01:52 — Breaking news: Court of International Trade ruling announced.
• 02:52 — Popok critiques the economic and political basis for Trump’s tariffs.
• 04:21 — The constitutional delegation of tariff authority explained.
• 05:44 — Critical distinction between “balance of payments” and “balance of trade.”
• 11:15 — Court’s rationale: No "fundamental international payments problem."
• 13:57 — Popok highlights the benefit to consumers and Trump’s probable refusal to concede.
• 14:59 — Popok outlines the appellate process and likely outcomes.

---

Memorable Moments

• Popok’s chuckle about how, after six years, “everybody has become an expert of the specialty court that sits in New York with three judge panels.” (03:24)
• His cheeky acknowledgment about legal diversity: “I like diversity in practice, but this is ridiculous.” (referring to Brett Shumate’s heavy DOJ case load, 07:56)

---

Conclusion

Michael Popok’s detailed analysis clarifies the legal and economic significances of the latest defeat for Trump’s tariff agenda. By separating law from political spin, the episode sheds light on the impact of these court decisions: relief for importers and consumers, affirmation of Congressional authority, and a likely end to one of Trump’s major fiscal maneuvers—pending one final trip to the Supreme Court. The ruling's legacy will ripple through trade law, elections, and government authority.

---

For the complete legal filings and further discussion, Popok encourages listeners to visit the Legal AF Substack for ad-free content and daily updates.

Transcript

[Progressive Insurance Narrator]

Insurance isn't one size fits all, and shopping for it shouldn't feel like squeezing into something that just doesn't fit. That's why drivers have enjoyed Progressive's name your price tool for years. With the name your price tool, you tell them what you want to pay and they show you options that fit your budget enough. Hunting for discounts, trying to calculate rates, and tinkering with coverages. Maybe you're picking out your very first policy, or maybe you're just looking for something that works better for you and your family. Either way, they make it simple to see your options. No guesswork, no surprises. Ready to see how easy and fun shopping for car insurance can be? Visit progressive.com and give the name your price tool a try. Take the stress out of shopping and find coverage that fits your life on your terms. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates Price and coverage match limited by state law

[Wayfair/Shopify Advertiser]

hey there, it's Wayfair here, where delivery and setup are as easy as a few taps on your phone. You're relaxing in an old hammock square scrolling Wayfair's app when you spot it. A brand new patio set. Next thing you know, Wayfair delivers it right to your patio and sets it up. Oh, you need a new grill too. All right, Wayfair's got you covered. With Wayfair's room of choice delivery and fast expert setup on qualifying orders, life gets a little easier. Visit Wayfair.com or the Wayfair app. Wayfair Every Style, Every Home Owning a

[HomeServe Narrator]

home is full of surprises. Some wonderful, some not so much. And when something breaks, it can feel like the whole day unravels. That's why HomeServe exists. For as little as $4.99 a month. You'll always have someone to call a trusted professional ready to help, bringing peace of mind to four and a half million homeowners nationwide. For plans Starting at just $4.99 a month, go to homeserve.com that's homeserve.com not available everywhere. Most plans range between $4.99 to $11.99 a month. Your first year terms apply on covered repairs.

[Michael Popak]

We got breaking news. Chalk up another victory for the Democratic attorneys general as the state of Oregon and other importers take down the Trump administration at the Court of international trade, finding 2 to 1 that Donald Trump's attempt to replace his prior unconstitutional illegal tariffs with new unconstitutional illegal tariffs is no better than the first time around. Striking down his tariffs under the 1974 Trade Act Section 1 22. Oh, that's going to be on everybody's lips. Section 122 tariffs are gone, everybody. We can celebrate just another attempt by Donald Trump to try to bamboozle the American people. Tariffs are bad for the global economy. They're bad for the US Economy. They're not generating any money that can fill the hole that's created by Donald Trump's immoral regressive tax scheme that taxes the middle class to give tax breaks to the rich. And he can't plug the hole by going after our allies and enemies alike with another 10% up to 15% tariff. So says the Court of International Trade, the only court that matters at this point in six years on legal af. Until this year, we talked about the Court of International Trade exactly zero times. But now everybody has become an expert of the specialty court that sits in New York with three judge panels. And we've got the ruling has to do with Donald Trump trying to convince the three judge panel and not, not being able to that we have a balance of payments problem. Not a balance of trade, a balance of payments. So I have your attention. Let's get into it. I'm Michael Popak. You're on Midas Touch an unlegal af and let's talk about, let's talk about this new ruling. Okay. Let's talk about where we were and where we are. Where we were is that the United States Supreme Court overwhelmingly rejected Donald Trump's efforts to use the International Economic Emergency Powers act to impose tariffs on 200 countries, finding that neither Article 1 of the Constitution about Congress's powers gives the president the ability to tariff, especially under that statute, and struck them all down. Donald Trump, knowing that they were going to be struck down immediately, within a month or two, leapt into action and said, I'm going to tariff anyway. I have another tool in my tool back. But he doesn't see the power to tariff and tax is solely that of Congress. Under or Article 1, Section 8, they can delegate to the executive branch, but it has to be an expressed delegation specific. You can't just can't be ambiguous like, well, I wonder if Congress wanted the President to have that power. If you're there, if you're asking that question and scratching your head, then it's not a proper delegation. There have been times in history and by statute that the Congress has delegated certain aspects of their tariffing and taxing power to the presidency. Trump's arguing that under a 1974 act that was created because of a unique set of problems about the monetary, global monetary System, the money system, the currency system and different currencies and the fluctuation of value for those different currencies that and Nixon trying to solve it by hitting certain countries with tariffs. The Congress needed to step in and come up with a law. So with that as the background fluctuation in foreign currency, you know, the money of other countries versus the value of the American dollar at the time coming off the gold standard, because we used to be on the gold standard, US Dollars in circulation, how to be tied to a dollar amount of value of gold, hard gold ingots and bars sitting in the Federal Reserve, you know, in places like Fort Knox and things like that. Once we got off the gold standard, money fluctuated more than usual, especially around the world. So the balance of payments issue being addressed by the law that Trump tried to use is that on day one I have a contract to pay X amount for your goods from Italy, okay? But on the day that I've got to make the purchase, my currency is lower than when I did the contract. And to make up for it, I've now got to overpay for the Italian goods. I got to come up with more dollars. And to balance that out, the balance of payments. To make sure I'm not getting screwed because of currency fluctuation, the Congress passed the 1974 Trade act, this section 122 allowing a President under those circumstances to address the balance of payments issue by having a short term ability to tariff. That's not what's going on here. We don't have a balance of payments problem. Balance of payments doesn't mean balance of trade. Balance of trade, they both have balance in the title, but balance of trade is we have a trade deficit or trade surplus. Trade deficit means you're buying less from me that I'm selling to you. You know, you're not buying as much US Goods, we're buying too much goods from the economic European Union. And there's a delta, there's a trade imbalance there, there would be a deficit. You're buying more from me than I'm selling to you. That's a trade surplus. But that's not a balance of payments issue. That's a, an a goods inventory issue, if you will, which is at the heart of this case in front of judges Barnett, Kelly and Stanso. And so what happened is the state of Oregon and some importers, the ones that bring the goods into the country, ran to the Court of International Trade and filed their lawsuit, went up on a hearing. We had some of the Democratic attorneys general talk about that oral argument and now we've got the ruling. The other interesting thing is the lawyers involved for the government. It's always this guy, Brett Shumate, the assistant attorney for the Civil division of the U.S. department of Justice. He's involved with so many cases he can't possibly keep up. That's why we're watching an exhausted Department of Justice like Brett Schumantes involved with birthright citizenship. I just saw him sign a brief about the Metropolitan Golf Course, the East Potomac Golf Course in, in in D.C. now he's on the international trade case. I mean listen, I like diversity in practice, but this is ridiculous. So they the opinion which I'll post on Legal AF substack or I have posted goes through how we got to the 1974 Trade act, starting first with Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution, which gives Congress the sole power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, which are translated as tariffs. Coming out of world Immediately after World War II there was a a need for a more effective efficient global monetary monetary money policy and system. And from the World War II came the international Monetary Fund and the World bank and other ways for countries, especially the Allies, to easily trade with each other because on payment issues, I mean today we're talking about know cryptocurrency and the blockchain and how that can be an efficient way to facilitate transactions especially around the world. Coming out of World War II, we were talking about the gold standard and gold reserves and paper money. And so they all met at a place called Bretton woods and came up with the Bretton Woods Accord and the Bretton Monetary system. And we sort of have the remnants of that even today will come 20, 30 years later. By the 1970s, because US had come off the gold standard, there was tremendous fluctuations in currency value which led to Congress after Nixon tried it himself and there was an appeal up to a similar court, the predecessor court to the Court of International Trade, which was the Customs Court. Congress says let's fix it. They came up with a a new law while the case was up on appeal and it says as follow whenever this is, this is the law Trump tried to use. Whenever fundamental international payments problems require special import measures to restrict imports to make it more expensive to to get things from Italy to deal with large and serious United States balance of payment deficits. The President shall proclaim for a period not exceeding 150 days a temporary import surcharge not to exceed 15% in the form of duties on any articles imported into the United States. But you have to have a fundamental international payment problem on the United States side of the ledger. And after going through the whole Bretton woods system and Nixon and the era, this court, two to one, just declared that, that the unique circumstances that allowed that allows a president to invoke Section 122 tariffs is not anywhere present here that we have a balance of trade issue about goods, but we don't have a balance of payments issue about money. And therefore you cannot use this delegated authority because the underlying trigger is not present. What's that mean for Donald Trump and for us? Well, it's a good thing for the American consumer and importer because they just got through having the hundred, the original tariffs struck down by the Supreme Court in the last month, and they're in the process of getting back the $170 million, sorry, $170 billion of collected tariffs, which importers now have to go through a whole bunch of refund processes and maybe court cases to get their money back, whether it ends up back in the American dollar, in the American pocket. The consumer. Some, some places like FedEx have said they're going to refund the money. Some, maybe lower prices, some will just keep the money. That's the problem with refunds based on goods and a tariff. So we're just getting out from under that and the impact on the economy and the ability of consumers to have any money left at the end of the month. Now this has been destroyed. Now Trump's trying another way to tariff, which is through a system of hearings conducted by the Commerce Department. But he'll never find a way to collect the hundreds of billions of dollars a year that he wanted to collect to offset the trillion dollars of tax breaks he's given the wealthy. It's probably the best thing that ever could happen to Trump, but he won't take the loss because this is a tremendous burden on the American people. These tax, these tariffs and their elimination may actually benefit America. Yet Donald Trump won't take no for an answer. So what happens next? There is a specialty appellate court in D.C. from which appeals from the Court of International Trade go. It's the Federal Circuit, Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. They will, my gut is likely agree with a two to one panel. And if Donald Trump doesn't like it, he goes back to the United States Supreme Court all over again to try to convince, you know, you know, he lost last time, six to three. He's gonna have to convince those six that these tariffs are different than the other tariffs and try to teach them on balance of payments. That argument does no better at the Supreme Court than it did here at the Court of International Trade will follow it. It's important to our economy. It's important to the voters. And I'm so glad you're with me here on Midas Touch and Legal af. Take a moment. Hit the Free subscribe button over on Legal af. So until my next report, I'm Michael Popak. Can't get your fill of Legal af. Me neither. That's why we formed the Legal AF Substack. Every time we mention something in a hot take, whether it's a court filing or a oral argument, come over to the substack. You'll find the court filing and the oral argument there, including a daily roundup that I do called wait for it Morning af. What else? All the other contributors from Legal AOFF are there as well. We got some new reporting, we got interviews, we got ad free versions of the podcast and hot takes where Legal AF on Substack. Come over now to free subscribe.

[Wayfair/Shopify Advertiser]

What would you do if your online store converted 36% more shoppers? You could take 36% more vacation.

[Michael Popak]

Another pina colada?

[Wayfair/Shopify Advertiser]

Yes, please. Open a new retail location with 36% more square feet.

[Michael Popak]

Fantastic.

[Wayfair/Shopify Advertiser]

Hire 36% more help. You're hired and you're hired. Shopify has the world's best converting checkout up to 36% better than other ecommerce platforms. What you do with those extra sales is up to you. Switch to Shopify today at Shopify. Com Setup and get a $1 trial. Shopify com Setup.