Supreme Court poised to rule on tariffs, birthright citizenship and more

Summary

---

NPR Politics Podcast

Episode: "Supreme Court poised to rule on tariffs, birthright citizenship and more"

Date: January 7, 2026
Hosts: Tamara Keith, Carrie Johnson, Mara Liasson

---

Overview

This episode examines major Supreme Court cases with sweeping political and constitutional implications, focusing primarily on how upcoming decisions could reshape the powers of the executive branch and influence signature Trump administration policies. The cases discussed involve Trump’s tariffs, the ability to remove Federal Reserve officials, the future of birthright citizenship, the Voting Rights Act, mail-in ballots, and key culture-war legal battles. The hosts analyze the stakes, potential consequences, and the broader context of an increasingly assertive executive branch.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Trump’s Tariff Policy and Supreme Court Review

• Case Focus: Legality of Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) from the 1970s to unilaterally impose tariffs (01:10–04:58).
  • Some conservative justices have expressed unease about the broad grant of power to the president.
  • The law does not mention tariffs and has never been used this way.
• Host Analysis:
  • Carrie Johnson (01:34): “The big question here is whether that law can carry the weight of all of these tariffs the president has imposed.”
  • Mara Liasson (03:08): “The political implications of anything that lessens the effect of tariffs is probably good for Trump's party, even if it would be considered a loss for him.”
  • Potential for a narrow ruling: The Court could suggest Trump pursue tariffs under a different statute or get congressional approval.
  • Tamara Keith (04:07): “It’s been remarkable to me how existentially he is treating this, even though... there are potentially other options if the Court rules against him.”
• Notable Quote:
  • President Trump’s social post: “Tariffs are an overwhelming benefit to our nation… Losing our ability to tariff other countries… would be a terrible blow to the United States of America.” (Read by Tamara Keith at 02:26)

2. Trump v. Cook (Federal Reserve Removal Power)

• Case Summary: Whether the president can fire Federal Reserve Board member Lisa Cook for “cause,” following unsubstantiated claims of past wrongdoing (05:05–06:41).
• Host Remarks:
  • Carrie Johnson (05:05): “Members of the Fed are appointed for 14-year terms… to try to insulate them from political pressure.”
  • Mara Liasson (06:03): Points out Trump is working “within the rules on this one,” insisting there is cause, rather than challenging the removal restriction itself.
  • Discussion of the political and economic risks: Changing Fed board composition could lower interest rates, possibly causing inflation.
  • Mara Liasson (06:26): “Here’s another case of the Supreme Court maybe saving Trump from himself.”

3. Birthright Citizenship

• Case Overview: Legality of Trump’s executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship for children of migrants (06:41–08:09).
• Constitutional Context: The 14th Amendment confers citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the U.S.
• Carrie Johnson (06:52): “That would really upend most law professors’ understanding of the 14th Amendment and could be a totally revolutionary view of immigration law…”
  • The Trump view is that the Amendment only applies to descendants of formerly enslaved people, not children of migrants.
• Mara Liasson (07:42): “He’s saying, ‘I don’t care what the Constitution says. The president should be able to decide who can be a citizen.’”

4. Voting Rights Act and Congressional Maps

• Case Summary: A Louisiana case challenging Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits race-based voting discrimination (08:34–10:37).
• Concerns:
  • Weakening Section 2 could lead to substantial loss of minority congressional representation.
  • Carrie Johnson (09:19): “... the Congressional Black Caucus could lose up to 30% of its members and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus could lose up to 11% of its members.”
• Mara Liasson (09:42): “If the Voting Rights Act has changed, Republicans could draw about a dozen more Republican leaning districts…a big structural advantage in races for the House.”
• Political Framing: The current conservative Court majority has previously expressed the view that civil rights protections may have reached their “expiration date.”
  • Carrie Johnson (10:17): “Some of the changes… imposed under the Voting Rights Act… have a time limit… that time may be coming due soon.”
  • Mara Liasson (10:37): “That squares with the whole MAGA argument… that if there is racial discrimination, it’s against white people.”

5. Mail-in Ballot Laws and Potential Impacts

• Case Focus: Republican National Committee’s challenge to Mississippi’s law allowing mail-in ballots postmarked by and received up to five business days after Election Day (11:10–13:37).
• Key Issues:
  • Trump and allies claim mail-in voting harms Republicans, despite lack of evidence.
  • Carrie Johnson (12:05): Explains postal service changes—delayed postmarks—threaten timely ballot counting.
  • Mara Liasson (12:43): “Mail-in balloting… is an important tool for both parties.”
• Election Official Viewpoint: No substantiated evidence of widespread fraud.

6. Culture War Cases: Transgender Sports and Conversion Therapy

• Sports Cases: Constitutional challenges to state bans on transgender women and girls' participation in women's sports (14:21–15:42).
  • In Idaho and West Virginia, lower courts found the bans unconstitutional.
  • Carrie Johnson (14:21): “The Trump administration here is siding with the states who had enacted these bans.”
  • Mara Liasson (15:25): “Polls show… people are not for transgender women playing on girls sports teams. But… is it more important than prices on healthcare and groceries? I don’t think so.”
• Conversion Therapy Case: Christian therapist challenges Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy, claiming it violates her free speech rights (15:45–16:34).
  • State defends ban as regulating harmful conduct, not speech.
  • About 25 states have similar bans, making the ruling potentially broad in impact.
  • Carrie Johnson (15:45): “The Trump administration here is supporting the Christian therapist. And it would matter in part because this kind of ban applies in about 25 states.”

---

Court’s Role, Executive Power, and Guardrails

The Supreme Court’s Approach to Trump-Era Cases

• Trends: The conservative Court leans toward expanding executive power, a philosophy predating Trump but “he just happens to be the vehicle for that.”
  • Mara Liasson (17:01): “If Trump wins the vast majority of these cases, we're going to have a different form of government where we have an all powerful executive and a withered judicial and legislative branch.”
• Presidential Compliance:
  • Thus far, the administration has complied with Supreme Court orders, though not always with lower court rulings (18:50–19:52).
  • Carrie Johnson (19:23): “The solicitor general... did promise Justice Amy Coney Barrett that the administration would do what the Supreme Court said.”
  • Mara Liasson (19:52): “White House… has gone out of its way to say the president would not defy the Supreme Court. That would be a constitutional crisis.”
  • The White House frames itself as “unchecked,” yet draws the line at Supreme Court defiance.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Carrie Johnson (01:34): “The big question here is whether that law can carry the weight of all of these tariffs the president has imposed.”
• Mara Liasson (03:08): “But the political implications of anything that lessens the effect of tariffs is probably good for Trump's party, even if it would be considered a loss for him.”
• Carrie Johnson (06:52): “That would really upend most law professors’ understanding of the 14th Amendment and could be a totally revolutionary view of immigration law and the Constitution and presidential power.”
• Carrie Johnson (09:19): “... Congressional Black Caucus could lose up to 30% of its members... Congressional Hispanic Caucus could lose up to 11%...”
• Mara Liasson (17:01): “If Trump wins the vast majority of these cases, we're going to have a different form of government where we have an all powerful executive and a withered judicial and legislative branch.”
• Carrie Johnson (19:23): “Solicitor General John Sauer... did promise Justice Amy Coney Barrett that the administration would do what the Supreme Court said.”
• Mara Liasson (19:52): “White House… has gone out of its way to say the president would not defy the Supreme Court. That would be a constitutional crisis.”

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• Tariffs case and Court’s power bounds: 01:10–04:58
• Federal Reserve firing case: 05:05–06:41
• Birthright citizenship: 06:41–08:09
• Voting Rights Act (Louisiana redistricting): 08:34–10:37
• Mail-in ballot case: 11:10–13:37
• Transgender sports/Conversion therapy cases: 14:21–16:34
• Discussion on Supreme Court’s broader role and Trump’s adherence to its rulings: 17:01–20:21

---

Tone and Takeaway

The discussion is factually rich, nuanced, and at times direct about the stakes: The hosts blend legal details with political analysis, maintaining NPR’s signature serious but accessible tone. The episode underscores that 2026 is a pivotal year for the scope of presidential authority, voting rights, and social policy—potentially redefining the constitutional order depending on how the Supreme Court rules in these high-profile cases.

Transcript

[Cachava Advertiser]

This message comes from. It feels good to connect to your simpler side, simplifying your wellness with Cachava's all in One Nutrition Shake. Feels good, too, with 25 grams of protein, 6 grams of fiber, greens and more. No fillers, just the highest quality ingredients. Simplify your [e-mail] and use code NPR. New customers get $20 off an order of two bags or more now through January 31st. That that's K-A-C-H-A-V A.com code NPR.

[Juliana]

Hi, this is Juliana in Seattle, Washington, and I'm currently on my way to my first day of law school.

[Mara Liasson]

Ooh. Congratulations.

[Tamara Keith]

This podcast was recorded at 1.22pm on Wednesday, 7 January.

[Juliana]

Things may have changed by the time you listen to this, but I will still be in the library, nose deep in my massive law books. Enjoy the show.

[Tamara Keith]

There's so much reading in that first year.

[Carrie Johnson]

May the Force be with you.

[Tamara Keith]

Hey there. It's the NPR Politics Podcast. I'm Tamara Keith. I cover the White House.

[Carrie Johnson]

I'm Carrie Johnson. I cover the Justice Department.

[Mara Liasson]

And I'm Mara Liasson, senior national political correspondent.

[Tamara Keith]

And today on the show, we are talking about some of the major decisions expected to come from the US Supreme Court in the days, weeks and months ahead. The court has indicated it could release its first opinions of the year as early as Friday. Kerry, one opinion that we are watching for and could get on Friday concerns President Trump's tariffs policy. Remind us of the key issue here.

[Carrie Johnson]

Yeah. Central part of Trump's agenda, this sweeping tariff plan. He put it into place early in his administration, and he's relying on a law from the 1970s called the International Emergency Economic Powers act, even though that law does not mention the word tariffs and it has not been used for that purpose since it was established by Congress. And so the big question here is whether that law can carry the weight of all of these tariffs the president has imposed. It is important to note that when this case was argued before the Supreme Court, even some of the conservative justices expressed concern about it and how much power it gave the executive branch. Of course, Congress is really supposed to be in charge of appropriations and things like that. So it's a big question moving forward how or if this will survive Supreme.

[Tamara Keith]

Court review, appropriations and taxation. So, yeah, and President Trump is clearly very, very concerned about this case. He has been posting on social media at a very regular cadence, including this post from January 2 saying, quote, tariffs are an overwhelming benefit to our nation, as they have been incredible for our national security and prosperity like nobody has ever seen before. Exclamation point. Losing our ability to tariff other countries who treat us unfairly would be a terrible blow to the United States of America. Mar. It would certainly be a terrible blow to his agenda. Or would it?

[Mara Liasson]

Well, the big question about all these cases is how far will the Supreme Court go to help Donald Trump in his overall political project, which is to vastly expand the powers of the executive? And what's interesting about the tariff case politically is, ironically, if they rule against him on this, they could be helping his party because Republican candidates in the midterms are being hurt by the economic effects of Trump's tariffs, which are are to raise prices. But the Supreme Court could also rule, and I want to hear what Kerry has to say about this. They could also say, just go back and do your homework. You can expand tariffs. You just can't use IPA in this way. Kind of like what they did with the Muslim ban in his first term. Just say there are other ways you can do this. You could get a vote in Congress. You could use another statute. There is another way for you to get your tariffs done. So we'll see what they do. But the political implications of anything that lessens the effect of tariffs is probably good for Trump's party, even if it would be considered a loss for him.

[Tamara Keith]

Yeah, it's been remarkable to me how existential he is treating this, even though Kerry, I think there are potentially other options if the court rules against him.

[Carrie Johnson]

There are a bunch of off ramps the court could take here. They could rule very narrowly, allowing Trump to use different laws or statutes to reimpose tariffs, and they could rule in ways that would only affect money's moving forward. Remember, at oral argument, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee, raised a question about whether it would be really a complete mess to try to figure out how to give money back that had already been collected. So we're going to have to wait and see how narrowly the court rules here. But the administration could have other options, even if the court majority rules out the use of this particular law from the 1970s.

[Tamara Keith]

Carrie, this is one of several cases before the Court this term that are central to Trump's agenda. What are the others that you're watching?

[Carrie Johnson]

Yeah, first off, let's talk about Trump. Trump versus Cook. Cook is Lisa Cook a member of the Federal Reserve Board. And President Trump wants to fire her. He basically says that she may have committed mortgage fraud earlier before she got appointed to this board. Lisa Cook herself has said that allegation is baseless, and she has not been charged with any wrongdoing. Members of the Fed are appointed for 14 year terms, and they're appointed that way to try to insulate them from political pressure. The law that created this board basically allows the President to remove people for cause. The question is whether there is good cause for Trump to remove Lisa Cook. So far, lower courts, the district court and the federal appeals court have said no, and they've kept her in place on the job. But Trump's envoy to the Supreme Court, Solicitor General John Sauer, basically is arguing that courts cannot second guess a president's decision about what cause might mean.

[Mara Liasson]

But what's so interesting about this, Kerry, is that he is not saying I can fire anybody on the Federal Reserve for cause or not for cause. He's not saying that. He's saying I have cause playing within the rules on this one. He isn't saying that the whole system should be thrown over so that the executive can make any decision he wants.

[Carrie Johnson]

Well, that's in part because the Federal Reserve is so important to monetary policy and to his continued success.

[Mara Liasson]

Right, but that's what's so interesting about this. He wants the ability to put people on the Federal Reserve that will lower interest rates, but if he does that, he might get inflation. So here's another case of the Supreme Court maybe saving Trump from himself.

[Tamara Keith]

It's a political and economic high wire, Kerry. Another one is birthright citizenship. President Trump signed an executive order when he came into office attempting to ban birthright citizenship.

[Carrie Johnson]

He did, and you know, that would be an earthquake for federal law. After the Civil War, the Constitution was amended to make clear in the 14th Amendment that all persons born or naturalized in the US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the US and since then, for over 100 years, the understanding is that, yes, if you're born here on American soil, you are an American citizen. President Trump and his administration are arguing that part of the 14th Amendment only applies to newly freed slaves and their children, not the children of migrants. That would really upend most law professors understanding of the 14th Amendment and could be a totally revolutionary view of immigration law and the Constitution and presidential power.

[Mara Liasson]

He's saying, I don't care what the Constitution says. The president should be able to decide who can be a citizen.

[Carrie Johnson]

And, you know, the Supreme Court kind of looked at birthright citizenship earlier, but it did not get to the central issue of what it meant. Instead, it took a case earlier on that had to do with universal injunctions. And so this is the court Deciding really at the most basic level who is an American.

[Tamara Keith]

And President Trump throughout his time in political life, but certainly in this term has had a lot of very strong opinions about who belongs in this country and who deserves to be an American. And this case is part of that. Another case the court has already heard arguments for relates to the Voting Rights Act. Carrie, explain this one.

[Carrie Johnson]

Yeah, this is a case out of Louisiana, and it basically concerns section 2 of the Voting Rights act that is considered to be the crown jewel of civil rights legislation in this country. And basically it prohibits treating people differently in the voting context on the basis of race. Remember, this supreme court back in 2013 basically gutted another major part of the Voting Rights act that had to do with pre clearance, preapproval of voting changes in states with a history of discrimination. So now we have another major section of this law potentially in peril at the Supreme Court. And really, the way the court decides this case could have huge impacts around the country for drawing maps in the future. Some voting rights groups filed a brief in this case saying that depending on how the Supreme Court rules, the Congressional Black Caucus could lose up to 30% of its members and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus could lose up to 11% of its members. It could have a big impact on who sits in Congress moving forward.

[Mara Liasson]

Forward, right. Big, big political implications on this one. The big question, of course, is timing here. If they do, as expected, get rid of the last vestige of the Voting Rights act, and they do it very quickly, it could have an effect on this year's midterms. If they do it later in the term, then it won't take effect till 2028. But it's possible, if the Voting Rights act has changed, that Republicans could draw about a dozen more Republican leaning districts around the country, and that would be a tremendous advantage for them, a big structural advantage in races for the House.

[Carrie Johnson]

One more thing here. Both Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh have expressed, you know, in the past pretty openly that they believe some of the changes that were imposed under the Voting Rights act back in the 1960s have a time limit on them. And that time may be coming due soon.

[Mara Liasson]

And that squares with the whole MAGA argument and the Trump argument that if there is racial discrimination in this country, it's against white people.

[Tamara Keith]

All right, we're going to take a quick break, and we'll have more in a moment. And we're back. And we were just talking about some of the important cases before the Supreme Court this year. Carrie, the court is also expected to hear arguments in the coming months in a case brought by the Republican National Committee that would affect mail in ballots, something that President Trump talks about a lot. What's going on with this?

[Carrie Johnson]

Yeah, this case involves a law in Mississippi that allows these mail in ballots to be counted as long as they're received within five business days after Election Day. And so it's really important because President Trump and some of his allies have been arguing that Election Day should be Election Day. People should go to the polls on Election Day, and that's the way ballots should be cast and counted. You know, Mississippi says that the stakes are really high here because throwing out ballots that may not arrive on Election Day themselves could really swing close races. Something like 16 states permit absentee ballots to be counted if they're received within a certain amount of time, as long as they're postmarked by Election Day. And that's important because the US Postal Service has announced they may try to change some of those postmarks. So this could be very, very significant political case.

[Mara Liasson]

Wait, how would they change the postmarks?

[Carrie Johnson]

The U.S. postal Service said right around Christmas time that it may not postmark a piece of mail the same day that it receives it. And that change could really affect how people vote by mail and whether their ballots are counted.

[Tamara Keith]

Well, and Mara, voting by mail has become an increasingly important part of the mix of the way that people vote. And, and certainly both parties have put an emphasis on banking ballots or getting votes in before Election Day, getting those votes in so that they don't have to just get people to show up on the day at a polling place where it might be raining or it might be cold or something.

[Mara Liasson]

Absolutely. I mean, this is one of those core beliefs you said. He talks about it a lot. It's kind of like windmills and tariffs. Donald Trump believes that mail in voting hurts Republicans, even though the evidence is just not there to show that. There was a election in 2020, a special election where the Democrat ended up beating the incumbent senator in Georgia. And many Republicans feel that one of the reasons the Republican lost is because Donald Trump disparaged mail in voting so much he discouraged Republicans from using it. So it's not clear, even though he has in the past said that the more people who vote, the worse it is for Republicans, that's just not true anymore. Republicans have been using mail in ballots just like Democrats. So this would possibly, if he wins this case, be a self inflicted wound. Because mail in balloting, as you said, is an important tool for both parties.

[Tamara Keith]

Though the Republican Party and certain Republicans, including the president himself, have raised a lot of concerns. Voting officials would say unfounded, but raised a lot of concerns about potential fraud related to mail in ballots.

[Mara Liasson]

That's right, but we haven't seen any evidence of that.

[Tamara Keith]

Right. There are also several cases before the court this term that relate to some of the culture war issues that, that Trump continues to talk about. In the fall, the court heard arguments in a case related to a ban on so called conversion therapy in Colorado. And next week, the court is scheduled to hear arguments in two cases related to whether transgender women and girls should be allowed to participate in women's and girls sports. Carrie, what should we know about these cases?

[Carrie Johnson]

Yeah, let's start with the sports cases. They involve challenges to the constitutionality of laws in Idaho and West Virginia. In Idaho, a transgender woman wants to to compete in track at Boise State University. The Ninth Circuit Appeals court ruled that Idaho's law that would ban that has violated the Constitution and the guarantee of equal protection. The other case was filed by a trans student who wanted to compete in girls teams at her middle school in West Virginia. There, the lower court also invalidated West Virginia's ban and basically said it violates a different law, Title 9, that prohibits sex discrimination in education. The Trump administration, administration here is siding with the states who had enacted these bans.

[Tamara Keith]

And President Trump talks about men and women's sports, as he says, all of the time, and says that this is a, you know, a losing issue for Democrats. He says it's such a good issue for Republicans. He said yesterday, I think that they should save it and bring it up right before the midterms.

[Mara Liasson]

Yeah, well, you know, it's interesting about that because polls show that in general, people are not for transgender women playing on girls sports teams. But the big question is, how significant is this issue gonna be? Is it more important than prices on healthcare and groceries? I don't think so.

[Tamara Keith]

And Carrie, let's go back to that Colorado case.

[Carrie Johnson]

Yeah. That case involves a therapist, a Christian therapist in Colorado. Colorado had banned conversion therapy for young people, and this Christian therapist wanted to talk about it with some of her patients. She says the state ban violates her free speech rights. She says it's a gag order. But the state says it's not about her speech, it's about conduct. And it also says that conversion therapy has been found to be unsafe and ineffective and could help exacerbate a mental health crisis among teens. The 10th Circuit Appeals Court, the lower court said the ban regulates conduct and not speech. The Trump administration Here is supporting the Christian therapist. And it would matter in part because this kind of ban applies in about 25 states.

[Tamara Keith]

You know, Mara, there is a conservative majority on the Supreme Court. President Trump has in this term especially shown himself very willing to push the limits of his power to, to try to assert as much executive authority as possible, even if it there's a question about whether the law is on his side. How are you thinking about this year and this court in that context?

[Mara Liasson]

Well, I think that, that the Supreme Court has been very friendly to Trump. Long before Trump was on the scene, many members of this Supreme Court, the conservative majority, have been in favor of something called the unitary power of the executive, which means giving more power to the executive branch. And Trump just happens to be the vehicle for that. What we're going to find out this year with this court is how friendly they're going to be. These cases have piled up. Just look at how many we've discussed today. There are a tremendous number of consequential cases before the court. And how the court decides on them is going to determine how our system of government has changed. We used to have what was supposed to be three co equal branches of government with checks and balances on each one. But I think if Trump wins the vast majority of these cases, we're going to have a different form of government where we have an all powerful executive and a withered judicial and legislative branch. For a number of reasons, President Trump.

[Carrie Johnson]

Has been on a tremendous winning streak at the Supreme Court. And even before he returned to office, the court basically gave him near absolute immunity from prosecution for his official acts. And since then, on the emergency docket, Trump has been racking up win after win. But the court has not always sided with him. There have been a couple of prominent examples. The court told Trump to facilitate the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia after he was shipped out of the country. And the court also recently refused Trump on the National Guard issue in Chicago. The open question here is whether on some of these cases that really matter to him, like tariffs and birthright citizenship, where even prominent conservatives are saying Trump has gone too far, whether this court majority will stand by the president.

[Tamara Keith]

And I think another question that hasn't really been tested yet in, in this presidency, I mean, I guess it's been sort of of poked at. But will President Trump follow court orders? So far the administration has with, with some limited exceptions. But if it is something that really matters to him, is he going to obey orders as, as he has said he will or and and just accept the defeat or, or will something else happen?

[Carrie Johnson]

Interestingly enough, the solicitor general, John Sauer, actually made a concession on that very point in one of the first Birthright Citize cases. Sauer would not say that the administration would follow what lower courts did, but he did promise Justice Amy Coney Barrett that the administration would do what the Supreme Court said.

[Mara Liasson]

Yeah.

[Carrie Johnson]

And in those two cases I mentioned, Kilmar Abrego Garcia is actually back on American soil. And Trump has moved the National Guard out of Illinois. He has listened to what the court had to say.

[Mara Liasson]

Yeah. And this is very important because the White House has gone out of its way to say that the president would not defy the Supreme Court. That would be a constitutional crisis. And this is a White House that flexes its muscle almost every day and says that they are unchecked and the president can do whatever he wants. But on this one, they have gone out of their way to say he's not going to defy the Supreme Court. Now, he has defied lower court judges, you could argue. But. So this is really interesting. Is this the last guardrail that Trump is willing to abide by?

[Tamara Keith]

We're going to find out, and we will be watching. Let's leave it there for today. As we said, the court has a decision day on Friday, so stand by for news. And please make sure to tap the button to follow this show so you don't miss that. I'm Tamara Keith. I cover the White House.

[Carrie Johnson]

I'm Carrie Johnson. I cover the Justice Department.

[Mara Liasson]

And I'm Mara Liasson, senior national political correspondent.

[Tamara Keith]

And thank you for listening to the NPR Politics podcast.

[Mara Liasson]

Sam.