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.