BREAKING: SCOTUS Nixes Trump’s Tariffs

Summary

STRICT SCRUTINY PODCAST
Emergency Episode: SCOTUS Nixes Trump’s Tariffs
Hosts: Leah Litman and Kate Shaw
Date: February 20, 2026

---

Episode Overview

In this emergency bonus episode, Leah Litman and Kate Shaw dissect the Supreme Court’s highly anticipated decision in Learning Resources v. Trump, which struck down former President Trump's emergency tariffs by a 6-3 vote. The hosts break down the Court's fractured opinions, the use and abuse of the "major questions doctrine," the justices’ ideological cross-pressures, and why this legal move is less a rebuke of Trump and more a strategic flex by the Court. They also explore the implications for future presidential powers and SCOTUS’s broader legitimacy.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Holding: Trump’s Tariffs Struck Down (02:18)

• 6-3 Supreme Court decision: The majority (Chief Justice Roberts, Barrett, Gorsuch + 3 Democratic appointees) holds that Trump's emergency tariffs are illegal.
• Lines of division:
  • The Roberts/Barrett/Gorsuch trio use the "major questions doctrine" to invalidate the tariffs.
  • The three Democratic appointees agree on the outcome but reject the major questions doctrine.
  • Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh dissent in support of Trump’s authority.

[Quote]

"The Chief Justice, together with Justice Barrett and Justice Gorsuch, concluded that the tariffs were illegal, and they did that by relying on their made-up major questions doctrine. The three Democratic appointees agreed that the tariffs were illegal, but said, we're just going to do law and rely on legal reasoning to get to that conclusion rather than this made up major questions doctrine."
— Kate Shaw (02:18)

[Timestamps]

• Remedies left open: The Court does not address how illegally collected tariff funds should be handled; this will go to lower courts (03:28).
• Host analysis: The ruling is both a shot at executive overreach and an act of institutional self-preservation, but ultimately leaves key practical decisions to the executive branch.

2. Political and Institutional Dynamics (04:06, 35:47)

• Host insight (with reference to guest scholar Kim Lane Shepley):
  The decision is a classic maneuver by courts under autocracy — appearing to check the executive to shore up judicial credibility, but actually leaving much implementation power with the presidency.

[Quote]

"By giving the executive control over implementation and remedies... it's actually handing the executive a big, if much quieter, win even while the headlines blare, Trump loses."
— Kate Shaw (04:06)

3. The Major Questions Doctrine: “Tooth Fairy of Legal Doctrine” (05:06)

• The Supreme Court applies the major questions doctrine to restrain presidential agency action when the Court deems an issue too "major" for ambiguous statutory authorization.
• The hosts describe this as a recently invented, "made-up" doctrine, inconsistently deployed, often to strike down Democratic initiatives.
• Irony noted: Doctrine invoked here because the policy is beneficial (when the target is a Republican), contrasted with its usual use citing costs (when targeting Democrats).

[Quote]

"The Major Questions doctrine is, in my view, kind of the tooth fairy of legal doctrine, very not real."
— Leah Litman (05:57)

4. Court’s Interpretation of the Statute (10:47)

• Regulate ≠ Tariffs:
  • The majority asserts the statutory language ("regulate") does not authorize tariffs, drawing a firm line (11:42).
• The opinion is also criticized for glossing over Trump’s erratic and politically motivated approach to tariffs, "sane-washing" him.

[Notable Moment]

"The literal first sentence of the opinion is sane-washing the president. So it says, 'Shortly after taking office, President Trump sought to address two foreign threats.' Huh. Is that what he's about to do?... Like, to go out of your way to credit his sincerity and good faith in the very first sentence of the opinion is a choice that John Roberts made."
— Kate Shaw (09:52)

5. Kagan and Democratic Appointees’ Concurrences (17:39)

• Refusal to Join “the Charade”: Kagan, joined by Sotomayor and Jackson, lambasts the major questions doctrine and relies on conventional statutory analysis.
• Memorable Kagan Footnote: Strongly rejects Gorsuch’s characterization of her reasoning as an application of the doctrine.

[Quote]

"Given his apparent desire for converts, I almost regret to inform him that I am not one."
— Kagan, via Kate Shaw (19:23)

• Key Kagan Quote:

"Combine the verbs and objects in all possible ways, and the statute authorizes 99 actions a president can take to address a foreign threat. And exactly none of the other 98 involve raising revenues.”
(20:24)

6. Gorsuch’s “Score Settling” Concurrence (21:38)

• Gorsuch disparages all colleagues not in full agreement, aiming particular scorn at Barrett for watering down the major questions doctrine and the Democratic appointees for not “joining” it.
• Hosts note the performative, antagonistic energy of his writing and his obsession with administrative law.

[Memorable Moment]

“Gorshit talking.”
— Leah Litman (23:33)
(In reference to copious critical commentary by Gorsuch within the opinion.)

• Barrett is accused by Gorsuch of treating the doctrine as “nothing more than routine statutory interpretation”—a point the hosts say is both correct and dripping with bad faith.

7. The Dissents: Kavanaugh, Alito, Thomas (29:32)

• Kavanaugh Dissent: Argues the major questions doctrine shouldn’t apply; maintains Trump was clearly authorized; claims foreign affairs should be an exception. The hosts call this reasoning “reactionary dum dum levels of gobbledygook.”
• Dissent celebrated by Trump: Trump’s presser lauds Kavanaugh’s "genius and great ability" (31:20), suggesting a political bond.

[Quote]

"At this presser, he said Kavanaugh's quote, stock has gone way up and that he's, quote, so proud of him today. He added, quote, I would like to thank Justice Kavanaugh for, frankly, his genius and his great ability. Very proud of that appointment."
— Leah Litman (31:20)

• Thomas’s Dissent: Defends unlimited delegation of tariff powers to the President, arguing some powers are “royal” and immune from non-delegation doctrine—a claim the hosts call out historically as nonsense.

8. What This Means for the Future (35:27, 37:59)

• Not a sea change: The ruling reflects situational self-interest (protecting markets and Court legitimacy), not a real check on Trumpism.
• Major Questions Doctrine is now a conservative super-weapon: The doctrine is "loaded for bear" and will be used to stymie future Democratic presidents on regulatory and policy matters, especially climate change.

[Quote]

“It is going to be an enormous obstacle to any future Democratic president doing anything significant... Because they have this malleable Major Questions doctrine that they will wield to invalidate anything they don't like that a president or an administration might do.”
— Kate Shaw (37:59)

• Supreme Court reform: Hosts repeat calls for reform as essential to any progressive agenda.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the Major Questions Doctrine:

  “This is a disaster masquerading as law, and they are unwilling to pretend otherwise.”
  — Kate Shaw (17:39)

• Gorsuch as “shitposter in residence”:

  "They must be so annoyed to have to... that's a shitposter every day. Like all of them, not just the Democratic appointees."
  — Kate Shaw (25:22)

• Kagan to Gorsuch:

  "Stop trying to make the major questions doctrine happen, Neil, it's not going to happen."
  — Leah Litman (20:07)

• On Trump’s press conference:

  "Trump also declared that he didn't think, quote, the court meant it when they struck down the terrorists."
  — Leah Litman (13:57) "Trump also elaborated that he, quote, read the paragraphs and I read very well. Great comprehension."
  — Leah Litman (14:12)

---

Important Timestamps

• 01:23 – 02:18: Leah and Kate introduce the case and Court lineup
• 03:28 – 04:06: Hosts explain the Court's ambiguity on remedies and implications for executive power
• 05:06 – 05:57: The “Major Questions Doctrine” origin and critique
• 09:52 – 10:47: Sane-washing Trump and the Court’s approach to statutory text
• 17:39 – 20:36: Kagan’s statutory analysis, sparring with Gorsuch in concurring opinions
• 21:38 – 25:22: Gorsuch’s bombastic concurrence and attacks on colleagues
• 29:32 – 34:38: Dissection of the dissents by Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas, and Trump’s reaction
• 35:27 – 40:39: Big-picture implications for Supreme Court legitimacy, conservative judicial strategy, and need for reform
• 41:23 – 42:02: Trump denounces the majority at his press conference

---

Takeaways and Host Analysis

• This is not the Court restraining Trump, but protecting its own legitimacy and conservative priorities.
• The “major questions doctrine” is now a robust, highly political tool for curbing Democratic executive action while being overlooked for Republican abuses.
• The divided opinions display personality clashes and entrenched ideological battles within the Court itself, especially among conservative justices.
• The real check appears only when Republican economic interests (corporate America, the markets) are threatened.
• Despite the headlines, this is not a meaningful or reliable legal constraint on executive (or Trumpian) overreach.

---

Final Words

“Happy Liberation Day to all who celebrate.”
— Leah Litman (42:29)

The hosts promise a fuller analysis on their next episode and tease dramatic fallout in upcoming Supreme Court and political developments.

---

End of summary.

Transcript

[Leah Littman]

Strict scrutiny is brought to you by Americans United for Separation of Church and State. We are all legal nerds here and we know that precedent set in any area of the law ripples out across our lives in so many ways. Our right to religious freedom is one of the most sacred areas of the law, protecting almost every aspect of our daily lives. Rights we all hold dear, like LGBTQ rights, freedom to choose the type of health care you need, and ensuring a well funded and inclusive public school system. Protecting the separation of church and state is in fact protecting the very foundation of our democracy. If you're looking for ways to more deeply understand the connection of and from religion to so many of the civil justice issues we see today, you should check out the Summit for Religious Freedom or Surf, an annual conference held in D.C. and virtually April 25th to the 27th, 2026 at Surf Advocates. Organizers, faith leaders, atheists, and everyone in between come together to take on the growing threats of Christian nationalism and the efforts to impose one narrow religious belief on us all. This is a movement for big change and collaboration across the entire spectrum of religious belief and non belief that strengthens our democracy, protects public schools, reproductive and LGBTQ rights, and more. Be part of the movement that's pushing back and standing up for freedom. Register to attend today@the srf.org Mr. Chief justice, please report. It's an old joke, but when an

[Jon Favreau]

arguing man argues against two beautiful ladies

[Leah Littman]

like this, they're going to have the last word. She spoke not elegantly, but with unmistakable clarity. She said, I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks. How reasonable. How moderate. How demure. How mindful. The Supreme Court is good. Now, my apologies to Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, I want to be a good girl. JK welcome back to Strict Scrutiny, your podcast about the Supreme Court and the legal culture that surrounds it. We're your hosts for today's emergency bonus episode. I'm Leah Littman.

[Kate Shaw]

And I'm Kate Shaw. And as you could probably tell by Leah's opening, we got the tariffs opinion finally. So so in Learning Resources versus Trump, the bottom line is that the Supreme Court invalidated Trump's tariffs on a 6 to 3 vote. The chief justice, together with Justice Barrett and Justice Gorsuch, concluded that the tariffs were illegal, and they did that by relying on their madeup major questions doctrine. We will elaborate. The three Democratic appointees agreed that the tariffs were illegal, but said, we're just going to do law and rely on legal reasoning to get to that conclusion rather than this made up major questions doctrine. And the other three, Thomas, Alito and Kavanaugh dissented Trump. And because maybe we are a monarchy after all, we'll also explain.

[Leah Littman]

Yeah. So we wanted to get you a quick bonus episode so you all could shape the narrative. I am actually recording this from vacation in Miami, but that's dedication, Leah.

[Kate Shaw]

That is.

[Leah Littman]

It is. Before we get into the deets, the top line is that the following principles and lines of reasoning remain strong. One, the President can't fuck with Supreme Court justices or Supreme Court Justices, emotional support, billionaires, investment portfolios. And two, but the stock market.

[Kate Shaw]

That's all legal reasoning.

[Leah Littman]

Exactly. Write it down. Another point worth highlighting up top is that the Court says nothing about the remedy. And what happens next? That is, given the Supreme Court's conclusion that the President has collected millions of dollars illegally from Americans, what happens to that money? Does it have to be payback?

[Kate Shaw]

To who?

[Leah Littman]

What's the process? All of that remains to be worked out, likely in the first instance by the Court of International Trade. I'm sure Donald and his band of genius Epstein class fail sons, including Howard Lutnick, will figure it out, especially because there's definitely not a shortage of lawyers in this administration.

[Kate Shaw]

And one final Topline note before we dive in, I wanted to highlight a point that friend of the show Kim Lane Shepley has made, and that is that this, what we are seeing with this tariff's opinion, is actually a familiar move by courts operating under various forms of ascending or actual autocracy. So the move is the court rules against an overreaching executive that allows the court to shore up its own credibility. And it also appears to make the executive answerable to the law, which helps the executive, even if that executive then rails against the court. But by giving the executive the power over remedies, as Leah was just describing, the court doesn't say anything about remedies. So that's kind of in the executive's court in addition to the lower courts. But giving the executive control over implementation and remedies is actually handing the executive a big, if much quieter, win, even while the headlines blare, Trump loses. And so that, I think, is an important kind of screen through which to view everything that has happened at the Supreme Court and all of the commentary about it.

[Leah Littman]

Absolutely. So let's start with the opinion of the Chief Justice. He relies on the major questions doctrine to conclude these emergency tariffs are illegal. The major questions doctrine, for those who might not remember, is a doctrine that the Court came up with in 2022, or at least formalized or made official that year that says when agencies do things that strike the court as a big Allah Ron Burgundy, the court will place a thumb on the scale against the agency's authority under the statute.

[Kate Shaw]

So just to kind of put that a different way, the court will interpret a statute not to authorize an agency's major action if the agency takes some major action, even when a broad general grant of authority might be best read to authorize the agency action. So this is essentially a presumption against at least some exercises of agency authority.

[Leah Littman]

And this is also what they call textualism these days, not giving a statute its best meaning. We'll get to that in a bit. The Major Questions doctrine is, in my view, kind of the tooth fairy of legal doctrine, very not real. In the part of the opinion about the Major Questions doctrine, which is joined only by Gorsuch and Barrett, who can't even agree on what the Major Questions doctrine is. That's how real this doctrine is. This plurality points to the unprecedented benefits of tariffs as a reason to invoke the Major Questions doctrine. This is a novel innovation of that doctrine. Previously, the Republican appointees have pointed to a policy's costs as the reason the Major Questions doctrine applies. This was darkly hilarious to me that even in their attempt to shore up this Major Questions doctrine, even though when they invoke the Major Questions doctrine against a Democratic administration to try to give it a veneer of legitimacy, they do so by saying, these policies with respect to a Republican president are awesome and great, whereas when they invoke it with respect to a Democratic president, it's because these policies will impose huge costs.

[Kate Shaw]

We should note that even though there is a lot of what my kids would call like, glazing the policy choices of the administration, the opinion does also kind of quote, you know, with some seeming skepticism, some of the more ridiculous parts of the Solicitor General General's brief, such as, quote, in the President's view, whether we are a rich nation or a poor one hangs in the balance. So that is called out in the opinion, sort of without commentary. One other thing that's important about this plurality opinion is that the Chief justice and Barrett and Gorsuch say pretty clearly that there is no Major Questions doctrine exception for either emergency statutes or foreign affairs, which was, you know, an argument that. We'll talk about Kavanaugh in a minute, but that the administration was pressing. So the plurality also repeatedly and lovingly invoked Barrett's separate writings on the Major Questions doctrine. Including some places where she basically said, let's rely on our common sense. Like that is one key component of the Major Questions doctrine, in her view, which is obviously what textualist and originalist judges do. Right. When the conservative takeover of the courts happened, what we were told is that none of this freewheeling decision making was going to happen anymore because rigid adherence to originalism and textualism would carry the day. And instead what we get is Amy Coney Barrett's conception of common sense. I also love Leah, you said, I think correctly, that the Major Questions doctrine was basically invented or at least recognized explicitly in 2022, count them, four years ago. But the court, like, really tries to say that we have long recognized the Major Questions doctrine, but then, you know, with one exception in the year 2000, everything else they cite is from the last dozen years. This is a new and made up doctrine.

[Leah Littman]

That's the new originalism and long standing precedent takes.

[Kate Shaw]

Yes.

[Leah Littman]

So in addition to the Major Questions doctrine, the first part of this plurality opinion is kind of a taxes bad, or at least a taxes are a BFD vibe, which to me underscored how this case was one where there was real ideological cross pressure on the Court's Republican appointees. Yes, it involved presidential power and presidential power being wielded by a Republican president where all executive power and maybe legislative and judicial power as well is unitary and resilient resides. On the other hand, the case involved what were effectively taxes opposed by the business corporate interests that are very much part of the Chamber of Commerce wing of the Republican Party and they have to protect those Fortune 500 CEOs. It was a little interesting to me that Barrett and Gorsuch ended up being more Chamber of Commerce than Brett Kavanaugh. Although then upon reflection, given that this case involves emergency presidential powers, an issue on which Brett Kavanaugh is basically a wingnut, that did make more sense to me.

[Kate Shaw]

Yeah, that's. I mean, Kavanaugh's sort of trajectory as like further and further in the embrace of Thomas and Gorsuch is like, definitely an interesting and important dynamic in the last year. The chief's opinion also I found really enraging in that it bent over backwards to treat Trump as a very normal president. Like the literal first sentence of the opinion is sane washing the president. So it says, quote, shortly after taking office, President Trump sought to address two foreign threats.

[Leah Littman]

Huh.

[Kate Shaw]

Is that what he's about to do?

[Leah Littman]

I look basically fan fiction.

[Kate Shaw]

I'm not even saying you, John Roberts, must dig into his motives or like, impugn his credibility. Just cite the contents of the executive orders that Trump issued. Quote them. They say they're about drug trafficking and trade deficits, but like to go out of your way to credit his sincerity and good faith in the very first sentence of the opinion is a choice that John Roberts made.

[Leah Littman]

Made 100% this Donald Trump was a guy who was playing Russian roulette with tariffs and basically doing a random number generator to come up with tariff rates. You know, no, no math, no economic principles, just vibes. The opinion, in addition to relying on but taxes and major questions doctrine, also relies on some plain text, specifically the Warren G principle. What does regulate mean? Since the statute that the President voted ipa, the International Emergency Economic Powers act, allows the President to other things, quote, regulate importation or exportation. The President had this to say in response to the chief's textual analysis. Quote, I'm very good at reading language, end quote.

[Kate Shaw]

Wait, the President. That was in a statement that he made.

[Leah Littman]

Oh, yeah.

[Kate Shaw]

So recording pretty soon after the opinion was released and there was a presser that Leah had a chance to watch. I didn't. He said, I'm very good at reading language.

[Leah Littman]

He did, he did.

[Kate Shaw]

Oh, good for him. So, you know, Leah was just quoting the language. Right. So there is this huge central question, like, does regulate encompass, you know, to tariff, to impose tariffs? And the opinion I thought was kind of messy in like, lots of different ways. And one place it was sort of hedgy was that there are a few places in the opinion where it sounds like what the court is saying is AIPA doesn't give the President the power to impose these tariffs, like these worldwide enormous, et cetera, et cetera. Maybe it's just saying these tariffs aren't authorized, but in other places, and I actually do think this is the best reading of the opinion, the court seems to be saying AA doesn't give the President to impose any tariffs. And in particular, in the kind of textual analysis part of the opinion that Leah was alluding to, though, kind of Warren G part. What does regulate mean? I do think the court pretty clearly says regulate does not encompass the power to tariff full stop. So I think that means AAA does not confer any power to impose tariffs, big or small. Although of course that doesn't take off the table the President's power to impose tariffs under other statutory authorities. So there was also a footnote, since we're still on the Roberts opinion. There was also a footnote that where I thought Roberts might be reminding Kavanaugh that Kavanaugh is not, in fact the president's lawyer. So let me just maybe quote that footnote a couple of sentences. Quote the principal dissent, and that's the Kavanaugh dissent, surmises that the president could impose most, if not all of the tariffs at issue under statutes other than ipa. The cited statutes contain various combinations of procedural prerequisites, required agency determinations, and limits on the duration, amount and scope of the tariffs they authorize. We do not speculate on hypothetical cases. Not before us.

[Leah Littman]

Shorter John Roberts Brett, you cray. So when I first read the opinion, I thought this was John Roberts saying, look my guy, we have to at least maintain an appearance of impartiality. But then I had a different response after listening to Trump's presser announcing a new slew of tariffs under other authority and declaring that the Supreme Court gave him a right to do that. I think the chief may also have been telling Brett to pipe down because he doesn't want there to be more tariffs, which he know are bad for Republicans. Kate, since you missed the presser, have to add, Trump also declared that he didn't think, quote, the court meant it when they struck down the terrorists.

[Kate Shaw]

Did they wink at him while they did it?

[Leah Littman]

Very unclear. Very unclear. Trump also elaborated that he, quote, read the paragraphs and I read very well. Great comprehension. So would definitely recommend you go back and watch the paragraph.

[Kate Shaw]

Did we say the opinion is 170 pages long? He read.

[Leah Littman]

I don't honestly know if he was referring to the opinion there or referring, referring to the briefs or referring to the statute which contains some indentation. Tbd. But the bottom line on this opinion, the chief's opinion was for me, the I can excuse fascism, but I draw the line at meme where the chief draws the line at the stock market and his and his buddies investment portfolios.

[Kate Shaw]

That seems

[Leah Littman]

strict scrutiny is brought to you by Quince. Quince is all about elevated essentials that feel effortless. It's also designed for layering and mixing so that each piece helps build a timeless wardrobe made to last. And with all the combinations that are possible, you can make just a few pieces go a long way. And with versatile silhouettes and thoughtful details, they're the kind of styles you wear again and again. You all know Melissa's quincepild. Well, here's some of what I appreciate about Quince. They've got the wardrobe staples with quality that's made to last. I have a few of their shells in silk, a V neck and a scoop neck. They go perfect under any blazer. I also have their cotton tanks and tees. Again, I can mix and match them with just about anything and they look and feel expensive. Like the kind of thing your emotional support billionaire would treat you to after a bad week. Only Quince is a company that actually has good practices. Quince works directly with safe ethical factories and cuts out the middlemen. So you're not paying for brand markup, just high quality clothing. Quince uses the highest quality materials like 100% European linen and organic cotton. Everything is built to hold up season after season. The stitching, the fit, the fabrics. These are pieces you'll reach for over and over. I can't tell you how much I love my Quince silk shells. They are my go to layer whenever I need to look profesh. Refresh your wardrobe with quince. Go to quince.comstrict for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada too. That's Q-U-I-N c e.comstrict to get free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.comstrict. you know what's easier than fixing a problem? Not having the problem in the first place. I mean imagine if we didn't have this. Supreme Court girl can dream. Same philosophy works for your liver. It's one of those organs you don't think about until you have to. Supporting it daily is one of those small things that can make a huge difference in how you feel overall. What does your liver even do? It's your body's filter. It processes everything you consume and performs more than 500 daily functions. Think energy production, digestion, vitamin storage, and more. Yes, the liver helps make these processes happen every day. And when it's overworked, you're going to feel it. So what is dose for your liver? Well, dose for your liver is a clinically backed liver health supplement. It promotes daily liver function so your liver can do its job. Zero sugar, zero junk and zero calories. What can you expect when drinking dose daily? Well, you're going to reduce your sluggishness and get rid of those midday crashes ready to give your liver the support it deserves. Head to dosedaily co strict or enter strict to get 35% off your first subscription. Your body does so much for you. Let's do something for it that's D o s e D a I L y co Strict for 35% off your first month subscription.

[Kate Shaw]

Okay, so that is maybe the tldr of the majority opinion that's also, you know, it's in part a plurality opinion. But where there are six votes to strike down these tariffs. But there were also a lot of concurrences in this case. So let's talk about the two sane ones first. The one written by Justice Kagan and joined by Justice, Mayor and Jackson is first up. And I will say you really have to respect them for holding the line the way they do on the major questions doctrine. They refuse to go along with this absolute charade slash mockery of the law, even though the Court was wielding it for reasonable ends here. And it is a familiar move, I think, to say, well, we've lost the major questions battle, and so at least the Court is using it appropriately here to invalidate this presidential action. That's a move we have seen Justices, including these three, make before. Like it sometimes makes sense. They are not going to play that game here. This is a disaster masquerading as law, and they are unwilling to pretend otherwise.

[Leah Littman]

Good for them. Yes, Neil Gorsuch said, or at least really implied that they, the Democratic appointees joined portions of the opinion applying the major questions doctrine, but they decidedly did not. Now, Neil's concurrence later clarifies that his allegation is actually that in there, the Democratic appointees separate writing, they're effectively doing the major questions doctrine, which is different than joining an opinion applying major questions doctrine. And I also think he's just wrong about that characterization in any case.

[Kate Shaw]

But. But in the first part where he's like, no, no, I'm telling you what you did. The kind of like, epic level of mansplaining of Neil Gorsuch telling the three women Democratic appointees what they actually think about the major questions.

[Leah Littman]

Doc, I'm going to explain the contents of your mind to you ladies.

[Kate Shaw]

I needed that. Luckily, Kagan responded to Gorsuch, so she had this footnote that I think we're just going to quote, quote. Justice Gorsuch claims not to understand this statement, insisting that I now must be applying the Major questions doctrine, and his own vers it to boot. Given how strong his apparent desire for converts, I almost regret to inform him that I am not one. I proceed in this case just as I did in West Virginia and Nebraska. I consider a delegation, provisions, language, broaden the scope to take in the statutory setting and apply some common sense about how Congress normally delegates. I'll let Justice Gorsuch relitigate on his own. Our old debates about the other statutes unrelated to the one before us, just pure fire.

[Leah Littman]

I loved it. The shorter line here was, stop trying to make the major questions doctrine happen, Neil, it's not going to happen.

[Kate Shaw]

Or pretending that you already made it happen and that we all already, like, are on board. Like, no, no, no.

[Leah Littman]

The almost regret line was just perfect.

[Kate Shaw]

That was great.

[Leah Littman]

On the Kagan opinion, I also wanted to flag this line, quote, combine the verbs and objects in all possible ways, and the statute authorizes 99 actions a president can take to address a foreign threat.

[Kate Shaw]

Threat.

[Leah Littman]

And exactly none of the other 98 involve raising revenues. End quote. Shorter. Elena KAGAN. You got 99 problems, John Sauer, and my brain is one of them. This was kind of a riff on a point she made during the oral argument that, look, this statute lists a bunch of verbs, actions a president can take, but taxes and tariffs just aren't one of them. Yeah.

[Kate Shaw]

All right, so that was like big, long concurrence like, like obviously sparred with Gorsuch. There was one more sane concurrence, Justice Jackson's, which just kind of explains why legislative history is a proper consideration and how it helps to resolve this case. So I think another example, like the three Democratic appointees refusal to just go along to get along with the major questions doctrine being a thing just because a majority of her colleagues are unwilling to look at legislative history is not for Justice Jackson, a reason to stop talking about it and reminding all of us that it does matter. And if we are one day in a saner timeline like these remain important interpretive devices that courts should look to.

[Leah Littman]

Let's move on to Neil Gorsuch's score settling concurrence. This was an absolutely unhinged concurrence to me, very Godfather. Today I settled all family business. 5 Like, you're not innocent. Justice Barrett is one of the clear insinuations here.

[Kate Shaw]

Absolutely. And so of I love the Godfather reference, I will say that his family business has maybe not all been settled because his personal family business involves actually destroying administrative agencies. And since this is like a president case, not an agency case, he's going to have to await another day to fully avenge his mother and Gorsuch Burford. But today he basically marches through to explain why every single separate writing in the case, the concurrences and the dissents, is wrong. And only he, Neil Gorsuch, I guess, along with John Roberts, are principled and understand the meaning of the major questions doctrine and indeed kind of broadly how to do statutory interpretations. He says of his colleagues, each of which he clearly believes is a fool. Quote, after kind of describing, like what they have done, he says it is an interesting turn of events. Each camp warrants a visit, and he's, like, just getting started.

[Leah Littman]

Yeah. So as to the Democratic appointees, there was this line I alluded to earlier that I think is super misleading, where he says, says, quote, past critics of the Major Questions Doctrine do not object to its application in this case, end quote. Yes, they do. They refuse to join the section of the opinion applying it. But why let facts get in the way of a great story?

[Kate Shaw]

It did a little bit. All the crosstalk helped a little bit explain the delay. I mean, it's obviously nearly 200 pages of opinions, but like we all expected, because they had so accelerated the consideration of, you know, the argument and the briefing that. That the opinion would be out, like, in January, and here we're kind of well into February. But there was just, like, a lot of crosstalk that they had to work through. And that is at least in part,

[Leah Littman]

and a lot of it coming from Neil Gorshit. A lot of Gore shit talking.

[Kate Shaw]

Yes.

[Leah Littman]

Right. That's good. That might be a new verb.

[Kate Shaw]

I think it might be. And I meant this is the fullest expression of it, I think. I think the verb was coined today because, like, we just really saw his full capabilities today. Okay. So we talked about him going after Kagan, the Democratic appointees. He then goes on off on Justice Barrett, who, quote, he says, suggests the Major Questions doctrine is nothing more than routine statutory interpretation. I mean, he is right. There is a kernel of truth that the Major Questions Doctrine, as the Court deploys it, is not remotely like normal statutory interpretation. And it's actually pretty bad faith to suggest that it is. But, of course, he has to be a complete jerk about the way he does it. So here is a representative footnote quote. Today, Justice Barrett protests that the foregoing discussion takes down a straw man. But it was Justice Barrett who previously wrote that the Major Questions doctrine grows out of common sense principles of communication. And it was Justice Barrett who used the various illustrations recounted above to suggest that our Major Question decisions can be explained by reference to the kind of common sense that goes without saying. If Justice Barrett now means to put all that to the flame, the Major Questions doctrine is better for it.

[Leah Littman]

Roll the cameras. The girls are fighting. This is what I was alluding to previously when I said, it's funny to me that they cannot even agree on what this, quote, doctrine is. Even though they want to say this. The Major Questions doctrine is definitely law, they still can't agree on what it's actually doing as a matter of law. Also, stepping back, how does anyone Go to work with Neil Gorsuch. He is so difficult and such a prima donna. This concurrence on concurrence on concurrence. I mean, listen, don't you have other things to do like a job?

[Kate Shaw]

This is how he understands his job, Leah. And you do get the sense that like they must be so annoyed to have to like that's a shitposter every day. Like all of them, not just the Democratic appointees. Oh no, I think it's pretty clear. I mean it's been clear for a while, but it's really clear on the face of this opinion. Okay, so that's what the sort of like, you know, ever sunshiny Neil had to say about his colleagues Elena and Sonia and Ketanji and Amy. Now on to Brett and Sam and Clarence. This is what Neil had to say. Quote. Still others who've joined Major Questions decisions in the past dissent from today's application of the doctrine. Finally, seeking to sidestep the Major Questions doctrine altogether, one colleague submits that Congress may hand over to the President most of its powers, including the tariff power without limit. That last bit was addressed to Clarence.

[Leah Littman]

Strict scrutiny is brought to you by Cozy Earth. Okay, you all know it's basically been World War III over at my house as I have to fight for the Cozy Earth Cuddle bubble blanket. Well, good news. I decided to fix this and do some peacemaking to put myself in contention for either the Noel Peace Prize or the FIFA Peace Prize. I take either. And so I got our house the classic Cuddle blanket. And omg, now my partner and I no longer have to fight over the blankets because a classic Cuddle blanket allows you to wrap yourself in the kind of comfort that that instantly feels special. It's richly plush and also has a comforting weight that is perfect for the polar freeze. It delivers warmth you can feel and softness you'll never want to give up. And it's like equal parts indulgent and inviting. So how am I showing a little extra love this February? By bringing more comfort and care into my everyday life and the life of people I live with. With the classic bubble blanket. It's the perfect way to indulge in self care, to wrap yourself in warmth and comfort. Also, you can get Cozy Earth with a risk free purchase. So they offer a 100 night sleep trial so you can try them out and if you don't love them, return them hassle free. Trust me, you won't want to. Honestly, we're probably going to need a third Cozy Earth blanket in this house because my dog also thinks she's entitled to one, which to be fair, she probably is. Cozy Earth also has a 10 year warranty because once you feel this level of comfort, you'll want it to last a decade. Share a little extra love this February and wrap yourself or someone you care about in comfort that truly feels special. Head to cozyearth.com and use my code STRICT for up to 20% off. That's code STRICT for up to 20 percent off. And if you get a post purchase survey, be sure to mention you heard about Cozy Earth right here. Celebrate everyday love with comfort that makes the little moments count. Strict Scrutiny is brought to you by Mint Mobile. We've got a lot to talk about on this show and you need a way to talk about all of it with your friends. And Mint Mobile can help Stop paying way too much for wireless just because that's how it's always been. Mint exists purely to fix that Same coverage, same speed, just without the inflated price tag. The premium wireless you expect unlimited talk, text and data, but at a fraction of what others charge. And for a limited time, get 50% off 3, 6 or 12 month plans of unlimited premium Wireless. Bring your own phone and number, activate with ESIM in minutes and start saving immediately. No long term contracts, no hassle. With a seven day money back guarantee and customer satisfaction ratings in the mid-90s, Mint makes it easy to try it and see why people don't go back. If I needed a new cell phone plan, trust me, this is what I would use. Ready to stop paying more than you have to? New customers can make the switch today and for a limited time, get unlimited premium wireless for just $15 per month. Switch [e-mail] strict. That's mintmobile.com strict. Upfront payment of $45 for three months, $90 for six months or $180 for 12 month plan required $15 a month. Equivalent taxes and freeze are extra. Initial plan term only. Only 50 gigabytes may slow down when network is busy. Capable devices required. Availability, speed and coverage varies. Additional terms apply. See mintmobile.com.

[Kate Shaw]

Okay, on to the descents.

[Leah Littman]

Yes, okay.

[Kate Shaw]

Justice Kavanaugh, as we've already mentioned, had the main dissent. It said the major questions doctrine doesn't apply here for two reasons. One, this is a Republican President. I mean that's not really on the face of the opinion, but the reasons provided are so flimsy. That actually is kind of the only way to understand what he is saying. He says the doctrine doesn't apply because the Statutory text, history and precedent constitute clear congressional authorization for the President to impose tariffs under aipa. But. But that's just not remotely plausible in light of the other major questions cases that the Court has handed down and in light of what this statute actually says with its words. And he says, even if there wasn't clear authorization, the major questions doctrine doesn't apply to foreign affairs, a principle I have no doubt he would apply in a principled and even handed fashion to a Democratic president who attempted to do something about, say, climate change, in part for foreign policy reasons.

[Leah Littman]

Absolutely. His opinion is, unsurprisingly, a mess. It basically does a much worse version of Judge Toronto's opinion on the Federal Circuit, concluding that the President did have authorization to make these tariffs, and a much worse version of Jack Goldsmith and Curtis Bradley's article arguing that the major question doctrine doesn't apply to foreign affairs. And his dissent has a listicle, because, of course it does. I mean, just reactionary dum dum levels of gobbledygook here. The President had a different response, basically confirming that this is reactionary gobbledygook. So at this presser, he said Kavanaugh's quote, stock has gone way up and that he's, quote, so proud of him today. He added, quote, I would like to thank Justice Kavanaugh for, frankly, his genius and his great ability. Very proud of that appointment.

[Kate Shaw]

Oh, my God. Did he talk about any of the other specific Justices by name or just justice?

[Leah Littman]

Good boy.

[Kate Shaw]

He did.

[Leah Littman]

Oh, yeah.

[Kate Shaw]

When?

[Leah Littman]

I'm telling you, you gotta watch this one.

[Kate Shaw]

I do have to.

[Leah Littman]

As soon as we're done, you gotta watch this one.

[Kate Shaw]

Wow.

[Leah Littman]

Yeah. So the Chief's opinion barely responds to Brett Kavanaugh's principal dissent, basically saying, brett, you ignorant slut. Liz Dye of Public Notice said that she made that characterization of the Chief's response on Blue Sky, So I wanted to credit her for it, even though I had this in our note before she said it. Anyways, specifically in this footnote, the Chief responds to Justice Kavanaugh's invocation of a pre IPA case as a basis for the tariffs. So after the Chief highlights a bunch of passages from that opinion that suggest the Court's previous opinion was very narrow and didn't resolve emergency tariffs, the Chief says, quote, this is not quite. No, no, a thousand times no, but should have sufficed to dissuade the principal dissent from invoking the case with respect to the quite distinct legal and factual issues present here. End quote. Once again, the girls are biting Brett Kavanaugh is such a desperate try hard, he had some extremely pathetic footnotes that to me coded as I'm still a super Republican into all Republican jurisprudence. So, for example, his footnote 16 began, quote, I have long been and fully remain a strong proponent of the major questions doctrine, end quote. And then in footnote 11 he says, quote, I cite the committee report that is a form of legislative history, quote, not for determining the meaning of aipa, but rather to help show as a historical and factual matter that members of Congress were aware of both the Nixon Tariffs and Appeals Court decision, end quote, that is using them to help establish its meaning. It's just pathetic. Very pathetic.

[Kate Shaw]

And I highly doubt that's one of the paragraphs that our President read. But like I am. The fact that Trump gave Brett an attaboy at the press conference is just going to like, encourage all of his worst impulses and. Ah, God, yeah, okay. Kavanaugh had one more idea that we should mention, which is that essentially this policy is so illegal it will be tough to unwind. So we're just gonna let the President do it. I mean, it's not exactly what he said, but that's basically the idea. And it really is conspicuous that you just don't recall seeing that argument in the student debt relief case. But I probably just missed it up.

[Leah Littman]

Yeah.

[Kate Shaw]

We should also mention the Thomas descent which says Congress's power to impose duties sl tariffs on imports can be delegated to the President. And the reasoning here is that this area, so foreign commerce is an area where the non delegation doctrine just doesn't apply. So it's so interesting how you can take these doctrines and then if there are things that they would lead you to maybe do when your President is in the White House, then you can just identify exceptions. It is quite convenient. The way that works works. So this is, you know, one of the ways Republican appointees and some commentators have gerrymandered the non delegation doctrine, similar to the gerrymandering of the major questions doctrine in a way that would allow Republican presidents to do what they want and just to dismiss any inconvenient history, just create categories that explain why different kinds of history don't count. Qed.

[Leah Littman]

So the Thomas opinion also decided to go full on anti no kings and argue that the non delegation doctrine specifically doesn't apply to powers of the crown. And Thomas asserts that one of the powers of the crown, which apparently was given to the person that the framers decidedly didn't want to make a king. But anyway, that one of the powers of the crown given to the president was tariffs. Now, Neil Gorsuch absolutely skewered this historical claim. You know, the king did not have power to raise revenue through tariffs. That was a parliamentary power. Britain fought a war over that also. Clarence, I'm not sure you've heard of this thing, this phrase, no taxation without representation. War II over it like what a week for England out. No kinging the United States.

[Kate Shaw]

That's true.

[Leah Littman]

So this is just supposed to be a bonus episode. It's getting long. But now to some take homes. So one for me is that the court did something good, which usually implies something wicked. This way is about to come. Are we going to get the opinion striking down the Voting Rights act next week? Possibility. Entirely possible.

[Kate Shaw]

Yep.

[Leah Littman]

Also wanted to underscore the ideological cross pressure at play in this case, which at least to me underscores this is not the start of a trend of the court just standing up against Donald Trump's lawlessness. And I would add to that that this ruling was also self serving and helpful to Republicans saving troops, Trump from himself, from this disastrous unpopular policy. And it's also self serving for the court not just to shore up their own legitimacy, but to shore up the major questions doctrine as well. And of course, unsurprisingly, we're already getting the court is good. Now takes Fox News was right out of the gate on this one, which you can hear here, Democrats have told

[Fox News Commentator]

us incessantly that this court is corrupt, that it is in the pocket of President Donald J. Trump, that it cannot be trusted, that it needs to be term limited, that it needs to be expanded. Today we're getting all of these pressers, the press releases, the statements on the, you know, in Washington of people saying Democrats saying the court got this right, so does it quiet at all any of this political language that has been about modifying the court, these efforts that Democrats say, you know, if they retake the House and Senate, that they may make moves to modify the court as we now know it. So if that happens, we should remember today where they are in full praise of the court and very happy about what it's done. There's also the political impact on the GOP side. This has been mentioned a little bit that we all know members that we've talked to on the GOP side of the aisle who are silently, quietly breathing a sigh of relief. And listen, the president can now say, you know, it's the Supreme Court's fault. I tried. These terrorists were working. It's about the justice. And then pivot to these other options we know he has for other tariffs.

[Leah Littman]

But it wasn't just Fox. You know, the New York Times push alert after pushing out Supreme Court strikes down, Trump's sweeping tariffs had a push alert that read, quote, the Supreme Court's Declaration of Independence, end quote. Yeah. So another key take home for me was that there's three votes for anything Republicans want to do on this court. I mean, Thomas, Alito and Kavanaugh read a statute that doesn't mention tariffs to allow a Republican president to implement, propose unlimited, unreviewable, unchecked tariffs.

[Kate Shaw]

Yeah. So, yeah. In terms of takeaways, I want to just elaborate on something that you said, which is that this Major Questions doctrine is this tool they have. They are loaded for bear with it. And it is going to be an enormous obstacle to any future Democratic president doing anything significant. Right. I mentioned climate change already. But literally, essentially, through executive action, any future Democratic president is going to have, like, a long list of policy priorities. And scotus, if not fundamentally reformed, slash disempowered, is going to be essentially an insuperable obstacle to the implementation of any of the items on that agenda. Because of. Not just because of, but largely because they have this malleable Major Questions doctrine that they will wield to invalidate anything they don't like that a president or an administration might do. I mean, we've joked before about the Major Questions doctrine, barring the government from stopping an asteroid barreling toward Earth. I mean, I think those are the literal stakes for a future Democratic president.

[Leah Littman]

Absolutely strong. Plus one. This is part of why Supreme Court reform has to be part of any Democratic agenda. And, you know, as I said, Brett Kavanaugh even dropped a footnote, noting that he, and presumably Alito and Thomas who joined him, remain strong proponents of the Major Questions doctrine, AKA he's watching and waiting for you, future President Ocasio Cortez. And these guys aren't even subtle about this. So Rand Paul, after the decision, tweeted out, this ruling will also prevent a future president such as AOC from using emergency powers to enact socialism.

[Kate Shaw]

Yeah. So one other takeaway and also kind of an elaboration on a point you made earlier, Leah. So if the Cook case also goes against Trump. Right. That's the case involving his ability to fire Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve. We have a pretty strong indication from the tariffs case and the Fed case that the court's tolerance for authoritarianism is high. But when that threatens, you know, markets, you know, both the stock market and the kind of global economy the court may curb presidential authority. And like, while I once thought that John Roberts actually, you know, for all his flaws, did at least care about things like the separation of powers. And while this opinion does pay lip service to that right, says congressional primacy and taxation is an important constitutional principle, I actually no longer think he cares much about the separation of power. So it actually seems to me really important for future big cases heading up to SCOTUS to, if you're trying to win the cases foreground whatever business or economic case you might have against executive overreach, because that, I think, is the language that this majority understands. And that is the only mode of argument that is getting much traction with this.

[Leah Littman]

Roberts was very into Pam Bondi's appearance before that congressional committee. He was like, yes, The Dow is 50,000. Pam, you're right.

[Kate Shaw]

That's right. Yep, yep, you mentioned Pam Bondi. I mean, Tuesday's State of the Union in the wake of this decision is going to be really interesting. So, again, I still need to listen to this press conference, but now that two thirds of Trump's appointees to the court have ruled against him, and he is, I guess, not making any secret of his displeasure, I am really curious if Kavanaugh gets an actual, like, back slapping. Attaboy. If Kavanaugh's there, which he typically is. Curious if Trump gives John Roberts a different kind of won't forget it than he gave him at last year's State of the Union.

[Leah Littman]

Absolutely. I mean, again, you gotta watch this. But he called them the Republican appointees who struck down the tariffs, slime balls and that they were an embarrassment to their families.

[Kate Shaw]

Okay.

[Leah Littman]

So very curious to watch what happens on Tuesday. I mean, I was waiting with bated breath for his response, and it truly did not disappoint. Here is just a sampling of it, which you can hear here.

[Kate Shaw]

They're very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution. It's my opinion that the court has been swayed by foreign interests and a political movement that is far smaller than people would ever think.

[Leah Littman]

Now, there were also some concerning indicators about how Trump might try to move the news cycle on from this tariffs decision, specifically, maybe by starting another war, this one with Iran. Minutes after the terrorist ruling was reported, the New York Times said, quote, president acknowledges that he is weighing limited strike on Iran. Now, we will end with this bit from the President's presser with no context.

[Kate Shaw]

I want to be a good boy.

[Leah Littman]

That's all for today's emergency episode. Happy Liberation Day to all who celebrate. We will be back on Monday with much, much more.

[Kate Shaw]

Strict Scrutiny is a Crooked Media production hosted and executive produced by Leah Lippman, Melissa Murray and me, Kate Shaw. Our senior producer and editor is Melody Rowell. Michael Goldsmith is our producer. Jordan Thomas is our intern. Music by Eddie Cooper. Production support from Katie Long and Adrian Hill. Matt de Groat is our Head of production. Thanks to our video team, Ben Hethcote and Johanna Case, our production staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America East. If you haven't already, be sure to subscribe to Strict Scrutiny in your favorite podcast app and on YouTube. Strict Scrutiny Podcast so you never miss an episode and if you want to help other people find the show, please rate and review us. It really helps.

[Jon Favreau]

If you guys like Pod Save America, please consider subscribing to our Friends of the Pod program. So Friends of the Pod get lots of stuff. You get more Pod Save America. That includes our new show which is called Pod Save America. Only friends. It's where Dan gets naked, where Dan gets full frontal nudity. But mostly it's a bi weekly subscription exclusive podcast that is basically Pod Save America but behind a paywall so it's a little bit looser and more fun. And it's love it. And Favreau and me and Pfeiffer and then other crooked hosts, we go deeper on the news and cover more stories. You also get Open Tabs, which is a weekly behind the scenes newsletter from the show. Plus you get ad free episodes of your favorite crooked podcasts and all kinds of other stuff. Dan will come to your house and clean it once every quarter. Yeah, Clothed Dan is very busy. Clothed only. But along with just getting great content, Becoming a Friend of the Pod joining our subscription community is the number one thing you can do to help us grow to help independent progressive media. So if you're ever thought about doing it, if you ever wanted more Pod Save America, consider going to cricket.com friends and becoming a Friend of the Pod.

[Grainger Advertiser]

If you're an H Vac technician and a call comes in, Grainger knows that you need a partner that helps you find the right product fast and hassle free. And you know that when the first first problem of the day is a clanking blower motor, there's no need to break a sweat. With Granger's easy to use website and product details, you're confident you'll soon have everything humming right along. Call 1-800-granger clickgranger.com or just stop by Granger for the ones who get it done.