← The Jim Acosta Show
The Jim Acosta Show
BREAKING NEWS SUPREME COURT SLAPS DOWN TRUMP TARIFF POLICY WITH KATIE PHANG AND NORM EISEN
00:31:46
Loading summary
Transcript42 lines
- [00:00]
A
Foreign. We're coming to you with breaking news right now. The Supreme Court has struck down, handed a significant defeat to Donald Trump by striking down his use of these far reaching global tariffs. This is a significant loss, according to the Associated Press, on an issue crucial to his economic agenda. It's a 6 to 3 decision centering on the tariffs that he unilaterally imposed under what he calls emergency powers. Let's bring in our friends Norm Eisen, the great Norm Eisen and Katie Fang, who are much better legal experts than I am in parsing this out. But Norm, you first. We were texting about this and saying, hey, we got to jump on and go live about this because you were saying this is a very significant ruling.
- [00:48]
B
It is, Jim. Today, the Supreme Court, as you noted by a 6:3 majority in a blockbuster decision, one that will be studied in the history books for years, has said Donald Trump does not have the latest in a series of emergency powers that he's claimed. In this instance, he used the ipa, a statute that does allow for dealing with other emergencies. He tried to extend it to tariffs. And the Supreme Court has said, no, you can't bend federal law in that way. The IIPA statute does not allow you to seize this power. And the language led by Chief Justice Roberts, who's cobbled together what I think is going to be a new majority on the court has unified the center of the court with the liberal wing of the court, the center right and the liberal wing six justice majority to slap down Donald Trump's rule of law overreach yet again. Jim, this is we'll talk about this. It's part of a pattern of cases where Katie and I in our capacity at Democracy Defenders Fund and Democracy Defenders Action are often litigating up there. And I think you're going to see this as a body blow to the Trump authoritarian regime, but a powerful defense of the rule of law in American democracy.
- [02:35]
A
And we should know we're doing this breaking news in concert with your folks at the Contrarian with the Katie Fang Show. But Katie, I mean, this has been the linchpin of Donald Trump's economic agenda since the the time he rolled into the White House January 20th of last year. He has alienated key US allies. He's gone after the European Union. He's gone after just about, he's triggered a trade war with China. I mean, you name it. This has destabilized the global economic landscape. And the Supreme Court seems to be saying, no, Donald Trump, you can't just go and do this on Your own, which is basically what all of us have been screaming since last year.
- [03:14]
C
Yeah, Jim. And you know what's incredibly powerful about this decision is not only who decided in that six person or six justice majority, but the fact that it's not just the economic impact. There has been the collection of billions of dollars in these tariffs since he's imposed it. And what's interesting is the opinion is silent on the refund of that money. Right. So that's going to be kind of an interesting thing that's going to be playing out. But as we know, the flexing of executive branch power in this way was also done to be able to put Trump's thumb on the scale when it came to just straight up foreign relations. He was trying to be a bully, and one of his weapons as a bully were these tariffs. I mean, and with somebody as close as Canada and Mexico, for example. So for the Supreme Court to take this, and I want to note, because people were kind of complaining about how long this took. Jim, this oral argument was November 5, 2025, this decision being released and rendered on February 20. That's a pretty fast turnaround, all things considered, when it comes to the Supreme Court. Right? Norman. So I want people to understand there have been, though, monumental impacts on just the regular American people.
- [04:33]
A
Jim.
- [04:33]
C
This has not just been big countries and big companies. It's been small businesses that have been shuttered because Trump thought that he had the ability to bully other countries into this. And so I'm just going to cite literally just a couple of sentences from the syllabus, which is the beginning part of this multi page decision. Jim. And it flat out says Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises. The framers recognize the unique importance of this taxing power, a power which very clearly includes the power to impose tariffs. And the framers did not vest any part of the taxing power in the executive branch. Jim and Norm, we're going back, literally Article 1, Section 8 of your United States Constitution. This is how far back in time we go to the basics to have to deal with somebody like Donald Trump.
- [05:26]
A
Yeah, Norm, if only, if only Donald Trump had watched Schoolhouse Rock back in the 70s and 80s like Katie and I did. Well, I'm a little older than Katie, a lot older than Katie, but I mean, it's laid out. We don't have a dictator in this country. But Donald Trump has tried to behave that way with these terrorists. And to Katie's point, he has hurt farmers in the Midwest who are hopping mad right now. I've seen some people say that maybe the Supreme Court did Donald Trump a favor, politically speaking. We can talk about the politics of this later. But lay out, Norm, what this means for our Constitution, what this means for our democracy. It sounds like the Roberts court is trying to rein this president back in after unleashing him in a very unhealthy way.
- [06:05]
B
That's right, Jim. And you have to put this decision. And we're gonna drill down and Katie and I are gonna talk to you about some of the interesting divisions in this coalition that the chief has put together of on the center, center right of the court, himself and Amy Coney Barrett. The two of them occupy the middle only because Alito and Thomas have swung so far to the right as they are here. Interestingly, in that middle coalition, the chief picked up Gorsuch, whereas Brett Kavanaugh, who often is part of that centrist coalition, he swung to decide with the right wingers. But the chief has some leeway to play with. And then, of course, you have the three liberals on the court who joined in with a different rationale. This is one of those decisions, Katie and I will explain where it's like a Rubik's cube, Jim, to figure out what. Because each different justice has a slightly different view and the decision is chopped into pieces and different people join different pieces. But let me get to the bottom line before we drill down on all of that complexity. This is the third time in a major case this year that we have seen year plus of the Trump administrative administration that we've seen the Supreme Court say, hey, not so fast, buddy. You don't have that power. We saw it with the Alien Enemies act case where there was a dispute about whether there was, among other things, invasion of our country. And he sent that case, Supreme Court sent that case back down to the 5th Circuit. They wouldn't rule for Trump. The 5th Circuit, citing a brief that Katie and I and our colleagues worked on at length that we filed in the 5th Circuit. 5th Circuit said, no, I don't see Trinder Ragwa driving any tanks down the street out my window. Donald Trump, you don't have the power. And then we had a second case where the city of Chicago, the National Guard cases, Katie and I are litigating these all over the country, including in California. This case went from Chicago to the Supreme Court and the state of Illinois, city of Chicago, Donald Trump there. Can you deploy the National Guard again? It's an extension of his power. No, you can't. Another kind of Emergency power, can't keep the peace with regular forces. Slapped him down. Three strikes, you're out, Jim. Now, they've said again, under IPA you can't use tariff powers. So I think we're starting to see a pattern emerging. But, Katie, it's very fascinating when you look at the difference of opinion here on the major questions doctrine. There is a conservative and a liberal way to get to the answer. And the liberal justice is the. They got to the same place, Jim.
- [09:14]
A
Yeah.
- [09:14]
B
But they took different paths.
- [09:17]
A
Yeah. And it seems to be, is it liberal versus conservative or constitutional versus unconstitutional? Is it dictator versus democracy? I mean, it, you know, John Roberts says in the decision, the framers did not vest any part of the taxing power in the executive branch. Brett Kavanaugh says the tariffs at issue here may or may not be wise policy, but as a matter of text, history and precedent, they are clearly lawful. So Kavanaugh saying what Trump did was lawful. What the chief justice is saying, you don't have this power. The executive branch just doesn't have the power. And you're trying to take that power. It doesn't belong to you.
- [09:51]
C
You know, it's kind of ironic, Jim, is the following what, what, what norm meant by the Rubik's Cube analysis here is there is, and it's so the visual of that norm is so accurate because there are certain parts to the majority decision that have been, that has been set out. And to each part, certain justices join in agreement. And then each part, certain justices are joining in agreement. But what's fascinating about this is normally when you look at the conservative justices on the Supreme Court, they are quick to rush to something called strict construction, or they look at just the statutory language on its face, because normally if you look at it and you look at it and you read it just on the language on its face, the Supreme Court justices say we do not have to imbue in that analysis any intent. We don't have to look at other factors. We're just looking at the plain language of the state statue. And in this instance, for this, the Justices Sotomayor, Jackson and Kagan took almost the conservatives approach. Normally, they said on case statutory interpretation of IA says, it doesn't say the president can do this. And so because on its face, the statute doesn't say the president can do it, then we don't even have to go into whether or not there is a major question that has been presented. It is so funny to watch it being turned on its head to be used against the conservative justices in this way. And yet I think it shows that the Supreme Court, the evolution of the Supreme Court has now become something that we didn't anticipate. JIM when you see somebody like and and by the way, this is not the first time Amy Coney Barrett, for what it's worth, has been kind of inching her way into, in minuscule moments in certain major cases to be able to come a little bit more center than some of her conservative brethren on the court. Neil Gorsuch as well, sometimes jumps in and hangs out in the, quote, middle on these decisions. And so I would be, I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall for the circulation of the drafts on this. JIM and Norm, because for Roberts, for Chief Justice Roberts to corral people like Barrett and Gorsuch into this space, because remember, Amy Comey Barrett had her own hesitations for what it was worth on the Trump massive immunity decision. She had some hesitations on that. She had to make sure that she
- [12:24]
B
had she did a concurrence. She stated her own opinion.
- [12:27]
C
Right. NORM and so there is, I am hoping that this is what we call, right, some daylight between Trump and SCOTUS when it comes to them rubber stamping him, basically using his executive branch power as a bully.
- [12:43]
B
It's three strikes, JIM and Katie and that's what's so interesting, that the Alien Enemies act case, no, there's no invasion, the National Guard case out of Illinois. No, you don't have a sufficient domestic disorder that you have to use. You're allowed to use the National Guard. They really pushed them into a corner in those two cases. And now this third strike, no, you can't use ipa. You can't use this statute that is for international economic emergencies. It doesn't extend to the tariffs power. KATIE I'll pick up on two points that you made that are very important and add on both. The first is the form of analysis that the conservative three used. And Neil Gorsuch was my law school classmate. I've known him for a very long time. I actually, Jim, I gave him a half endorsement like baseball record with an asterisk. I said, well, this seat belongs to Merrick Garland that they've nominated Gorsuch for. But I went on the Tucker Carlson show to do this back in the days when I was friends with Tucker before he turned into what he is today. And I said, but with that asterisk, if it's got to go to somebody, you could do a lot worse with Donald Trump than Neil Gorsuch. And that's been proven yet again today. And he's been, he's done some decisions I don't agree with, but he's been very strong on criminal justice decisions, very protective of the Constitution. He's been very good on our Native American rights issues. And now on checking presidential power. So that's point one I wanted to make. It's a fascinating new coalition. Point two is, and Katie really started here, what does this decision is not just about the incredible pushback on Donald Trump that we're seeing even from this Supreme Court, which we've so often criticized for their abuse of the shadow docket. Pay attention to what they say, but also what they don't say. Total radio silence on the most important implementation issue refunds. It was such a big issue at oral argument. Why like the Sherlock Holmes story. Remember, my dear Watson, what about the dog in the night? But the dog didn't bark in the night. Holmes. Exactly. The silence is telling. They are leaving a clean slate. And we're now about to embark on the next great chapter of this landmark cases. The refund question is going to be litigated. And to all the small businesses out there, and Jim, I know a lot of them are fans of your and Katie's and our work at the Contrarian. They approach me wherever I am. I had a busy week litigating this week in California. I thought today was going to be a day off. Those small business owners, wherever you are, small business owners, this is an opportunity now for you to be a part of the defense of our democracy and for you to also, you operate on such narrow margins for small business owners also to be able to get back to work together to get back the money that was so unjustly seized from their cash registers, wallets and, and pocketbooks. So that's going to be the next chapter. It's going to be very, very interesting to watch how that plays out in the courts.
- [16:48]
A
Yeah. No, I mean, that, that is a huge question in all of this. Can people get a refund for these tariffs that they've been paying? And it sounds like what you're saying is, is that there appears to be a legal opening for these small businesses to go back and get reimbursed for these tariffs that they improperly paid. But the American people have been paying through the nose to, to compensate these businesses for the cost of those tariffs. And I mean, the other thing I want to point out, the Associated Press is saying that there are other tariffs that will continue apparently because Trump has used other authorities used, he's used another law Section 232 of the 1962 Expansion Act. This is what the Associated Press is. Well, yes, a lot of these tariffs go back to Liberation Day tariffs, as you were saying earlier. And so this is going to be a hornet's nest.
- [17:36]
B
But unlike Jim Acosta, the Associated Press didn't call me and Katie, we have 236 legal cases and matters against these people. These break the law every day. Overwhelming success, Katie, at Democracy Defenders Fund, Democracy Defenders Action. So if Donald Trump thinks he's going to be able to hide behind using other illegal tariffs, we may have another thing coming for him. Right, Katie?
- [18:04]
C
Yeah, Jim, I had a question for you, man. I mean, think about this. We are on the eve of the State of the Union, right? Which is usually an opportunity for the President of the United States to talk about the State of our Union. Right. But we've known that Trump looks at these tariffs as a crown jewel in his administration. And the fact that he has been slapped down by his, you know, scotus, some of whom are handpicked, you know, for. By him. I, I feel like this is the moment where we double down on the harm that has come from him. Right, Jim? I mean, we think about all the people that you and Norm have just talked about, people that just everyday Americans that have really been suffering because this man is such a megalomaniac. And Trump cannot do something that's legal and that, and that, you know, he does it to either stroke his ego or he does it because it benefits his own bottom line and hurts everybody else.
- [19:08]
B
Jim, I know that question is for you and Katie, and I have hardly let you get an answer in edgewise, but I'm gonna have to go. So may I, may I say one thing in response to Katie's brilliant insight and your fantastic question? Spur of the moment. I love being able to do this with the two of you. As soon as the decision came out, immediately I was on the. You're the dean.
- [19:32]
A
We defer to you.
- [19:33]
B
No, you're the deans. I may be the dean, but you're the chairman of the board and the president of the college, respectively, you and Katie. I was on a street corner out here in California where I've been doing legal stuff all week. And I immediately texted Jim and Katie and our wonderful Contrarian crew, Domenica Alioto at the Contrarian. I'm actually in her back room. We were gonna do contrarian business this morning. Here's what I wanna say apropos both of your brilliant points to all the small business owners out There and to all the customers of those small businesses and to every American who has had to pay greater prices and suffer the affordability crisis and inflation and economic harm because of this plainly illegal case where we filed a brief in the Supreme Court on behalf of dozens of conservatives objecting, as we saw in the opinion today, this is not conservative. This is my message to those small business owners and to every American affected. Chapter two of this landmark battle is starting right now. And small businesses will have the opportunity to claw back, to fight, to go to court for refunds and to benefit the Americans. Every American is touched by small business every day. And that benefit, when small businesses are able now to fight for our democracy to get their refunds, that benefit will redound to every American. And thank you, Jim, for having me. I'll let the two of you keep on going. And it's such a privilege to cover these stories and to be in this fight with my brother and my sister. Jim and Katie.
- [21:28]
A
No, absolutely. And Norm, we should tell our viewers, I mean, I always feel like bringing people into the process. Like we have been talking about doing this more often, and I feel like we just need to do this more often. We just need to make it a thing. And so we absolutely need to do this and we'll make this happen. But it's always great to hear from you, Norm, and what's wonderful to hear from you is the sense of optimism. I get the sense that you're a little bit like me. We're foolish optimists. You don't, you don't believe in the no win scenario, as James Tiberius Kirk once said on Star Trek. And you just believe in keeping the fight going. And I think that's what this is all about. And I think that, you know, I think the Supreme Court's trying to put the MAGA toothpaste back in the tube is my sense of what we're seeing right now. And he's, and, and, and they're trying to see if they can, you know, you know, put the, put the, either the unwieldy rubber hose back in the garage at this point. But Norm, great to see you. Have a great weekend.
- [22:24]
B
Great to see you guys. Thanks for answering the call.
- [22:27]
A
You're the best. Thank you, Norm. You and, and Katie, I, you know, as we were just saying, I, you know, to me, this, this State of the Union speech is for Donald Trump is shaping up to me to be even more unhinged than what we were probably going to hear on Tuesday night anyway.
- [22:43]
C
Yeah.
- [22:43]
A
He has been slapped down by his own Supreme Court. He has been sounding increasingly unhinged, it seems to me, in recent weeks. And I mean, he has said publicly to. The question you were asking earlier isn't. I think, I think he has said tariffs is his favorite word. That's his favorite word. Well, the Supreme Court has just basically said, talk to the hand. You're not. You don't get to use your favorite word. And so he's going to act like a spoiled little brat and he's going to have a temper tantrum. And I suspect that's going to make this upcoming State of the Union even more crazy and unhinged than it was to begin with. And I, I really under. I don't know. And really understand what the implications are moving forward of this decision, because it seems to me once all of these different entities have paid these tariffs, I mean, it's not like going to Amazon and getting a refund. You know, it's not like you could just go get your money back, like,
- [23:37]
C
let me go to the Whole Foods and drop it off in the bin. Right?
- [23:39]
B
Yeah.
- [23:41]
C
No, listen. In advance of this decision, Jim, several large companies that had the financial wherewithal they were rushing to get lined up to be able to sue to get their money back because they knew that they were going to probably after the oral arguments, which is why it's so bizarre that there was no mention of the refund issue in this opinion, because that was a huge part of the oral arguments. But they knew that this is probably going to become down the pipeline. Which means to me, a few things. One, people are starting to read the tea leaves pretty accurately in terms of where the stuff is going. I think that there's also probably a lot of buyer's remorse from this Supreme Court because by giving this immunity decision to Trump in 2024, I really feel like they gave him this idea that he was invincible and he took this Teflon dawn concept even farther than he needed to go. But I think what's happening is, as we see this total disconnect and this tone deafness that is coming from the Republican when it comes to the needs of regular American people, this is the reason why it's so important to continue to uplift their stories. The businesses that had to shut down, the people that have been struggling to be able to make ends meet, either because of healthcare premiums or because they were not able to sustain their, their, their businesses and pay employees, probably because of economic issues caused by immigration enforcement. Right. I mean, it's just this kind of like triple whammy that happens to just the regular everyday American. And I think that he's just, you know, I mean, pardon the phrase, but I think he shat the bed on this one. And so now I'm glad that the Supreme Court said no way. And, you know, Jim, my next question to you is this. You think he's going to accelerate the Iran war timeline now because he got dinged by scotus?
- [25:25]
A
Well, I, yeah, I think, I think the Supreme Court is, is now tired of cleaning up his dirty diapers. I think that's part of this, and I think you're right on that. We may see some major distractions coming down the pike. Not only Iran, remember, he has also teased the idea that he may unveil what the aliens are all about. He is talking, he's been, he's been going into cuckoo land and talking about UFOs, in part because he is always, you know, jealous of Barack Obama. So Barack Obama talks about aliens. Donald Trump has to talk about aliens. I mean, it's, this is how nutty the timeline that we're living in right now has gotten. But it seems to me, you know, he is in a major political jam at this point. And I do wonder whether or not John Roberts may be thinking he's thrown Donald Trump a lifeline here, a political lifeline, because if it does get him out of some political hot water in the Midwest and some of these areas that have been hard hit by the tariffs, it may come to his benefit, I suppose, politically speaking, if some of that economic tension is released to some extent. But I don't know if this gets unwound between now and November. It's just, I think it's gotten even more complicated and even more of a mess. And I, I'm serious, because they sent
- [26:33]
C
it back, sent it back without clear directions how this is going to happen, Jim. So it's just going to continue to wind its way through. Right. And you know, the government's going to get angry about how this process is going to be, so they're likely going to want to appeal that, too. So this is not going to get easy peasy wrapped up in a box with a bow.
- [26:49]
A
That's right.
- [26:49]
C
Months. It's not going to happen.
- [26:50]
A
I agree with you. And I think that, you know, people can say that the Supreme Court justices are immune from the, the civil discourse and what's happening out there and what people are saying on cable news and in newspapers and so on. Come on. They're human beings just like everybody else. They're vain Self absorbed human beings just like anybody else in Washington. And they, they see what everybody is saying and they see that we all have base, that we see them. You know, they see that we see them, that they have emboldened Donald Trump and turned him into a wannabe dictator. And now I'm sure Chief Justice Roberts is thinking, how in the hell am I gonna have some kind of legacy at the end of all of this when he, he's the one who completely shattered it with this immunity decision. And it emboldened Trump to go on this dictator spree, you know, that would make Saddam Hussein blush. And I just, you know, it seems to me that is why we're going to see Trump go bananas at the State of the Union. I just think that he's going to sound even more crazy and nuts than what we were probably going to see on Tuesday night had this not come down. And so, you know, I, I guess get your popcorn ready, folks, because maybe he's going to announce the aliens and the Iran war on Tuesday night.
- [28:06]
C
All, all in one fell swoop. I will say I'm, I'm proud that I'm going to be a part of the people State of the Union gym on Tuesday night, which is direct counter programming to so too 1 and 2. Part of that is having these members of Congress, they're going to be accompanied by real Americans that have been impacted by this administration, and that's their stories. And I think that's why you and I in independent media need to continue to connect the dots. We need to remind people that they should be asking if they have Republican electeds representing them in their districts, even if they're not Republicans themselves. Right. They should be asking their Republican electeds who have been supporting Trump and what are you doing to fight for me to get my money back? Or what are you doing to fight for me? Every time this man's doing something illegal and he gets smacked down in the court, either the district court, appellate court, or the Supreme Court, what are you doing to be able to push back? Because it doesn't look like you're helping me. And I am a member of your district. I am a member of your jurisdiction. I think you and I need to continue to say this decision has come out great. What's down the line, as you know. Right. That's what our burden is. I think that's what we need to do.
- [29:18]
A
And, and we have to remind the public to continue to believe what you see where your own eyes are telling you and not what Donald Trump is telling you. Not what conservative media are telling you. And that's why what we do here at independent media is so vitally important. So I'm glad that we had the opportunity to jump on and do this. I'm glad you were texting me as I was walking Duke and saying, jim,
- [29:37]
C
tell Duke I'm sorry.
- [29:38]
A
Get your ass home. We got to do breaking news on this terrorist thing. But it was totally the right decision. I'm glad we did it. And just to remind all our viewers, I mean, the breaking news is the Supreme Court has struck down Trump's global tariffs, handing him a significant loss on an issue crucial to his economic agenda. That's the way the AP is writing it in their lead, and it is exactly that. It is a major defeat for Donald Trump on this Friday. But, Katie, great to see you. Let's do it again soon. Good luck. On Tuesday, I'll be doing this thing with Miles Taylor. They have their defiance thing. Everybody's doing these rival State of the Union things. It's because nobody wants to watch cable anymore. They want to watch us.
- [30:15]
C
They want to see us.
- [30:17]
A
You know what? That's what we'll do. We'll give them what they want 100%. Great to see you, Katie.
- [30:21]
C
Bye.
- [30:22]
A
All right, and thanks to all of you for watching this special live coverage of the Supreme Court decision striking down Donald Trump's tariff policy. More later today. I'll have Steve Schmidt on the show later today, so stay tuned for that until next time. Still reporting from Washington, I'm Jim Acosta. See you soon.