The hottest Supreme Court Substack posts right now

And their main takeaways
Category
Top U.S. Politics Topics

Does anyone know why we're still doing tariffs?

Noahpinion • 29706 implied HN points • 22 Feb 26
🇺🇸 U.S. Politics Supreme Court
  1. The Supreme Court blocked the president's use of IEEPA for blanket tariffs, taking away an easy "on/off" tariff switch. Other laws still allow temporary or targeted tariffs, and the administration has already used Section 122 to impose 10–15% levies, so tariffs will keep happening.
  2. The tariffs failed to fix the trade deficit or revive manufacturing; they raised input costs, hurt factory activity, and led foreign exporters to cut shipments instead of absorbing the taxes. Most of the burden was passed to U.S. consumers and businesses, and the policy is deeply unpopular.
  3. A major reason the administration persists with tariffs is power: country-specific tariffs and carve-outs give the president leverage, opportunities for favoritism, and political influence. That suggests the policy is driven more by a desire for presidential control than by sound economics, which is why courts pushed back.

Monopoly Round-Up: Trump Loses on Tariffs, Has His 'Withdrawal from Afghanistan' Moment

BIG by Matt Stoller • 23721 implied HN points • 23 Feb 26
🇺🇸 U.S. Politics Supreme Court
  1. The Supreme Court said presidents can’t use IEEPA to impose tariffs, so the administration is pivoting to other trade laws to try to keep levies in place.
  2. Economically the ruling probably won’t move markets much because other authorities exist, but politically it’s a big blow that strips the president of a fast, unilateral tool and weakens his standing.
  3. Expect messy fallout: questions about $175 billion in refunds, lawsuits and corruption probes, and increased scrutiny of corporate mergers and firms that cooperated with the tariff program.

Trump’s Tariffs Are Down—but Not Out

Common Sense with Bari Weiss • 867 implied HN points • 20 Feb 26
🇺🇸 U.S. Politics Supreme Court
  1. The Supreme Court struck down the president’s broad country-by-country reciprocal tariffs, and the president quickly moved to impose new tariffs under a different legal authority.
  2. Not all tariffs were affected by the ruling — industry-specific tariffs remain in place, so parts of the trade policy survive.
  3. The justices were sharply divided, with different blocs offering different legal reasons and a strong dissent, leaving the legal question unsettled and open to future challenges.

Understanding the State of the Corrupt Supreme Court Today

Brad DeLong's Grasping Reality • 384 implied HN points • 27 Feb 26
🇺🇸 U.S. Politics Supreme Court
  1. The Supreme Court is operating like a Trump‑era power machine, using textualist and originalist rhetoric to justify shadow‑docket emergency stays that let the executive act quickly and create facts on the ground.
  2. Justice Barrett often serves as the decisive swing vote and presents herself as a neutral originalist. In practice she frequently enables expansive presidential power in emergency decisions, letting policies take effect before courts resolve the merits.
  3. The justices divide into hardline authoritarians (Alito, Thomas), structural revolutionaries (Gorsuch), and technocratic enablers (Kavanaugh, Roberts) versus three principled liberal dissenters, and the net effect is weakened agencies, narrower protections for workers and marginalized groups, and outcomes that favor business and executive power.

No immunity for Trump

Robert Reich • 28735 implied HN points • 06 Feb 24
🇺🇸 U.S. Politics Supreme Court
  1. A federal appeals court rejected Trump's claim of immunity for charges related to the 2020 election.
  2. Trump's legal delays may allow him to postpone a trial until after the presidential election.
  3. The court system should set tighter deadlines to prevent Trump from running out the clock on accountability.
Get a weekly roundup of the best Substack posts, by hacker news affinity:

The Ends and Means of Tucker Carlson. Plus. . .

Common Sense with Bari Weiss • 510 implied HN points • 23 Feb 26
🇺🇸 U.S. Politics Supreme Court
  1. Tucker Carlson has been pushing narratives that blame Israel and Jewish people for America’s problems, mixing religious arguments with political attacks and deepening antisemitic divisions on the right.
  2. The Supreme Court struck down part of Trump’s tariff plan, a major legal setback that doesn’t fully end the tariff fight and highlights a larger battle over institutions while causing real harm to farmers and parts of the economy.
  3. Major current stories include debate over possible alien disclosures, Iran’s online propaganda reframing domestic protests, and urgent breaking news like the Mar‑a‑Lago shooting, the killing of a cartel leader, East Coast blizzards, and attacks on Ukraine’s power grid.

EMERGENCY POD: SCOTUS Slashes Tariffs!

ChinaTalk • 296 implied HN points • 23 Feb 26
🇺🇸 U.S. Politics Supreme Court
  1. The Supreme Court ruled that IEEPA does not authorize tariffs, meaning many tariffs imposed under that law are likely illegal and could trigger mass refund lawsuits and a substantial hit to federal receipts.
  2. The administration can and likely will try to recreate tariffs under other authorities — for example a temporary 10% under Section 122 or country-specific measures under Section 301 — but those routes are more constrained, slower, and invite country-by-country litigation.
  3. Global partners are unlikely to walk away from negotiated deals despite the ruling, Canada faces particular exposure, and small businesses (plus entrenched Chinese supply chains for things like toys) played a crucial role in challenging the tariffs and expose how hard it is to shift manufacturing quickly.

The Corrupt & Craven Supreme Court Has a Tariff Opinion This AM!

Brad DeLong's Grasping Reality • 369 implied HN points • 20 Feb 26
🇺🇸 U.S. Politics Supreme Court
  1. The three dissents mainly defend the idea that it's acceptable when a Republican president takes these powers, showing partisan and authoritarian commitments rather than neutral legal reasoning.
  2. The court's center (Roberts, Barrett, Gorsuch) was corrupt or craven in giving a Republican president a full year to use emergency tariff powers, which let him create facts on the ground and deter businesses from resisting.
  3. Allowing an "emergency" plus "unreviewable" tariff authority is structurally dangerous: it weakens property rights, risks long‑term economic harm, and the opinions signal shifts on the Major Questions Doctrine and on treating foreign trade as a presidential privilege.

Tim Walz ‘Crowded Theater’ Argument Is Misinformation

The Take (by Jon Miltimore) • 356 implied HN points • 07 Oct 24
🇺🇸 U.S. Politics Supreme Court
  1. The 'crowded theater' saying isn't a real Supreme Court test, and it never was used in the case that Tim Walz mentioned. It's a misconception that people often use when talking about free speech.
  2. The Supreme Court case he referred to, Schenck v. United States, was actually about distributing anti-draft leaflets, not yelling fire in a crowded place. So, Walz's argument doesn't really hold up.
  3. Citing the 'crowded theater' idea can be dangerous because it can justify limiting free speech, especially unpopular speech. History shows that suppressing free speech often leads to larger problems.

ROGUE JUDGE STRIKES AGAIN

Who is Robert Malone • 27 implied HN points • 16 Mar 26
🇺🇸 U.S. Politics Supreme Court
  1. A federal judge blocked the HHS secretary’s changes to the vaccine advisory committee and a shortened childhood immunization schedule, freezing meetings and policy updates.
  2. The judge has a pattern of issuing sweeping nationwide injunctions and was previously rebuked by the Supreme Court, which raises concerns about judicial overreach and politicized rulings.
  3. HHS plans to appeal and seek emergency relief, and the dispute highlights broader separation-of-powers fights over executive authority and the use of nationwide injunctions.

No Immunity Idol for Donald

The Status Kuo • 12775 implied HN points • 07 Feb 24
🇺🇸 U.S. Politics Supreme Court
  1. Former President Trump isn't immune from criminal prosecution under a special rule for presidents.
  2. Trump's legal options for delaying his trial are limited and facing obstacles.
  3. The Supreme Court may play a significant role in determining the timeline and outcome of Trump's case.

Trump’s Immunity Defense Crumbles

The Status Kuo • 14662 implied HN points • 10 Jan 24
🇺🇸 U.S. Politics Supreme Court
  1. The panel was skeptical of Trump's absolute immunity claim, even a Republican appointee was doubtful.
  2. Allowing presidential immunity from prosecution could lead to dangerous outcomes, like enabling the president to order assassinations.
  3. The Judgment Impeachment Clause argument is weak, as it does not provide absolute immunity from prosecution for a president.

A Power Grab by the Court

The Status Kuo • 11910 implied HN points • 18 Jan 24
🇺🇸 U.S. Politics Supreme Court
  1. The Supreme Court case challenges the 'Chevron Doctrine' and could potentially shift regulatory power to judges.
  2. Conservative justices on the Supreme Court seem ready to overturn the established 'Chevron Doctrine' that's been in place for 40 years.
  3. Overruling the 'Chevron Doctrine' could lead to judicial activism, with impact on regulatory powers and potential legal chaos.

The Great Disappearing Trans Freakout

TK News by Matt Taibbi • 12067 implied HN points • 20 Jun 25
🇺🇸 U.S. Politics Supreme Court
  1. The Supreme Court's recent ruling may signal a shift in how transgender issues are viewed in America, suggesting this controversy might be fading in political significance.
  2. There has been a lot of confusion and language policing around transgender discussions, making it difficult for people to express their opinions without being labeled negatively.
  3. Some political figures are facing backlash for voicing nuanced opinions on transgender rights, highlighting a divide in how people think about these topics within the Democratic party.

A pre-determined result in search of a rationale.

Today's Edition Newsletter • 9276 implied HN points • 09 Feb 24
🇺🇸 U.S. Politics Supreme Court
  1. The Supreme Court is likely to rule in favor of Trump despite engaging in insurrection, showcasing a pre-determined outcome seeking a rationale.
  2. States enforce various qualifications for presidential candidates, but the Supreme Court hesitates when it comes to insurrection disqualification, revealing hypocrisy.
  3. To address issues in the Court, expand it to diminish the influence of certain justices by retaining key political positions.

On the Farm, Trump’s Tariffs Are Still Causing Misery

Common Sense with Bari Weiss • 125 implied HN points • 21 Feb 26
🇺🇸 U.S. Politics Supreme Court
  1. Tariffs and trade fights have severely hurt farmers' incomes, with soybean prices collapsing so some couldn't break even.
  2. Cuts to federal sustainability programs removed important support and made it harder for farms to survive.
  3. Even if some tariffs are struck down, the damage to long-built export markets may not be fixed and farmers still face ongoing uncertainty about future policy.

The Supreme Danger

The Status Kuo • 10593 implied HN points • 02 Jul 23
🇺🇸 U.S. Politics Supreme Court
  1. The Supreme Court's recent rulings could have negative real-world consequences.
  2. The Court's decisions show a disregard for established legal principles like precedent and standing.
  3. Public trust in the Court is decreasing due to perceived overreaching and lack of restraint.

SCOTUS Has Alito Problem

The Status Kuo • 10554 implied HN points • 21 Jun 23
🇺🇸 U.S. Politics Supreme Court
  1. Justices like Alito coming under scrutiny for undisclosed relationships with billionaires and potential influence on Court decisions
  2. Alito went on a fishing trip to Alaska with a billionaire, Paul Singer, who had cases before the Supreme Court, raising concerns about impartiality
  3. Attempts by Alito to defend his actions and relationship with Singer through an OpEd seem unconvincing and raise doubts about ethical conduct

The Supreme Court Ruled Against Trump's Tariffs. Now What?

Apricitas Economics • 119 implied HN points • 21 Feb 26
🇺🇸 U.S. Politics Supreme Court
  1. A Supreme Court decision struck down most country-specific tariffs under emergency powers, so the administration replaced them with a temporary 10% flat tariff while sector-specific tariffs under other authorities remain in place.
  2. The tariffs have not reshored manufacturing or fixed the trade deficit, and they have raised consumer prices and failed to generate broad new factory investment, meaning Americans bore much of the cost.
  3. Legal and policy uncertainty will persist because the administration can rebuild tariffs through slower statutory processes or new orders, leading to lawsuits and continued business confusion even if some measures were curtailed.

American Bonaparte, American Kritarchy Part II

Contemplations on the Tree of Woe • 4071 implied HN points • 27 Jun 25
🇺🇸 U.S. Politics Supreme Court
  1. The Supreme Court has ruled that federal courts can't issue universal preliminary injunctions. This means that judges can't stop executive actions for everyone, but only for the people involved in the lawsuits.
  2. There has been a history of increasing use of these nationwide injunctions, especially during Donald Trump's presidency. The Supreme Court says this practice hasn't been allowed in U.S. history and needs to stop.
  3. The ruling might help Trump push his policy agenda forward now that the judiciary can't block him like before. However, there's a concern that he might shift focus to foreign conflicts instead of handling domestic issues.

Will the Supreme Court Save the Fed from Trump?

Common Sense with Bari Weiss • 268 implied HN points • 22 Jan 26
🇺🇸 U.S. Politics Supreme Court
  1. The president tried to fire a Federal Reserve governor for the first time to push the Fed toward interest-rate cuts. It was an unprecedented attempt to influence monetary policy.
  2. Federal Reserve governors are legally protected and can be removed only for cause, a rule meant to shield the central bank from political interference. This statutory protection preserves the Fed’s independence.
  3. The Supreme Court’s arguments suggested it may reject broad presidential power to remove central-bank officials and uphold the Fed’s autonomy. At the same time, the court might still permit greater presidential control over other kinds of appointees.

Stick a fork in it: The 14th Amendment is done

Lucian Truscott Newsletter • 3419 implied HN points • 08 Feb 24
🇺🇸 U.S. Politics Supreme Court
  1. The Supreme Court is debating the 14th Amendment and its application to disqualify individuals from office.
  2. The argument of whether the 14th Amendment is self-actuating faced skepticism and challenges during the court proceedings.
  3. There is uncertainty on how the Supreme Court will rule regarding the interpretation of the 14th Amendment and its implications for future cases.

The End of Youth Gender Transition?

Common Sense with Bari Weiss • 3830 implied HN points • 18 Jun 25
🇺🇸 U.S. Politics Supreme Court
  1. The Supreme Court decided that states can limit or ban gender transition treatments for minors. This marks a significant shift in how such medical care is regulated.
  2. The number of young people seeking transition treatments has greatly increased in recent years, with a surprising number of adolescent girls among those seeking help.
  3. The ruling highlights concerns about the lack of solid evidence and ethical practices surrounding these medical interventions for minors.

Texas Secures Its Southern Borders In Direct Opposition To The Illegitimate Federal Government & The Captured SCOTUS

2nd Smartest Guy in the World • 3262 implied HN points • 26 Jan 24
🇺🇸 U.S. Politics Supreme Court
  1. Texas and 25 other red states are joining forces to secure their southern borders against the federal government and the Supreme Court
  2. The Cloward-Piven Strategy aims to destabilize society through overwhelming bureaucracy and unfettered immigration
  3. Texas is defying the captured Supreme Court and ramping up efforts to stop the border invasion

If Salvador Dali painted a Supreme Court appeal

Lucian Truscott Newsletter • 3400 implied HN points • 20 Jan 24
🇺🇸 U.S. Politics Supreme Court
  1. Trump's appeal to the Supreme Court regarding his ban from Colorado is seen as surreal because it interprets the 14th Amendment in a peculiar way.
  2. Legal scholars argue that the 14th Amendment should bar insurrectionists from office, without the need for them to hold office first.
  3. Trump's appeal presents a bizarre argument that attempts to sidestep the 14th Amendment's provisions regarding disqualifying insurrectionists.

How Justice Gorsuch Helped Save Us From a “Climate Emergency”

QTR’s Fringe Finance • 29 implied HN points • 04 Mar 26
🇺🇸 U.S. Politics Supreme Court
  1. The Court ruled a president can’t use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose sweeping tariffs by declaring a national emergency, a decision Justice Gorsuch joined that reinforces limits on unilateral executive action.
  2. Gorsuch has repeatedly applied the major questions doctrine to argue that major policy shifts must be authorized by Congress, not created by agencies or presidents acting alone.
  3. That legal approach blocks a pathway for future administrations to declare a climate emergency and unilaterally impose measures like carbon tariffs or export bans, meaning big climate policies will likely require new laws from Congress.