Oral arguments today at 9 CT.

Home - Supreme Court of the United States
or
Live Oral Argument Audio

Don't know that much about SCOTUS operations. When are rulings typically expected post arguments?

Depends on the issue. I've seen this ruling coming next June.

4stringAg said:

---

Don't know that much about SCOTUS operations. When are rulings typically expected post arguments?

---

Whenever they want, is the short answer. But can happen at any time before the end of the term in June.

Sandra Smith at Fox thinks the ruling comes quick.

If SCOTUS goes against Trump, they likely split the baby.

Trumps collected will not need to be refunded but can no longer be collected on whatever x y and z traiffs SCOTUS strikes down.

Or maybe the punt it to June of next year, but that's even more abdication by the court… which is Roberts modus operandi.

Which tariffs though, not all are up at the Supreme Courts. Only certain ones ordered under the war powers or whatever. Most wont go away.

Well, if they go against Trump in this one, you might as well throw Gibbons v Ogden in the trash because we've got a lot of conversations that need to happen about what this supreme court thinks "regulate" means vs what 200 years of supreme courts thought "regulate" meant.

I think they pick a few to overturn. Trump needs to be smarter about how he does these and quit the Truth Social commentary about them.

Audio is HERE

Sauers, Solicitor General, is getting a lot of pushback from not only Sotomayor but Kavanaugh and ACB.

Anyone listening? Sounds like it's not going well for Team Trump (but oral arguments can be deceiving)

Justice Gorsuch to the solicitor general: Isn’t the logic of your view that Congress can “abdicate all responsibility to regulate foreign commerce, or for that matter to declare war, to the president?”

— Ken Dilanian (@DilanianMSNBC) November 5, 2025

Gorsuch: The logic of your view is that the president can order a 50% tariff on imported gas powered cars to fight climate change.

Anyone think the conservative majority is gonna go for that?

— Ken Dilanian (@DilanianMSNBC) November 5, 2025

To be honest, putting a 50% tariff on gas powered foreign cars probably is something most on the right would support.

Not a great example.

Quote:

---

Anyone listening? Sounds like it's not going well for Team Trump (but oral arguments can be deceiving)

---

It is not going well at all. A ton of pushback from nearly all of the justices.

I will be interested to see how Gorsuch rules on this case. He is the one that proposed the Gorsuch test for non delegation by Congress. This case would seem to be ripe for it to be applied.

Justice Gorsuch proposed a new testthe "Gorsuch test"for adjudicating nondelegation disputes. He averred that a legislature can only give power under three circumstances: (1) to "fill up the details"; (2) to make the application of a rule dependent on certain executive fact-finding; or (3) to assign nonlegislative responsibilities to either the judicial or executive branch.

https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/dlj/vol70/iss1/3/

How about a 100% tariff on foreign oil because the international climate change emergency?

flown-the-coop said:

---

To be honest, putting a 50% tariff on gas powered foreign cars probably is something most on the right would support.
.

---

Wrong!

Arguments just wrapped up.

Gorsuch asks whether a different president could declare a national emergency on climate change.

Sauer says he thinks they probably could.

So a GOP administration is arguing to the Supreme Court that a climate change emergency is probably allowed, for the sake of tariffs.

— Dominic Pino (@DominicJPino) November 5, 2025

This is what we call a self own.

This is why I really hope this is struck down and we get back to tariffs must be congressionally approved except in rare cases. Allowing a 10% increase in tariffs because a President is upset by a Canadian province running an ad is not a national emergency and definitely not what the Constitution intended. (Although if Congress passed it and it was signed by the President, it would be legal).

What I like about this case is that it would be difficult for SCOTUS to limit the power of POTUS here without simultaneously limiting the power of the administrative state. This looks like it could continue to strengthen to non-delegation doctrine, which would be good for America.

What I like even more about this case is that if Trump loses, it will be difficult for SCOTUS to limit his ability to issue tariffs under the Trade Act, because tariff powers are specifically delegated to POTUS if the US Trade Representative (an Executive branch position) finds that the trading country is unfairly restricting trade with the US. It takes a little more time than the Emergency Powers Act, but the power is still there.

Will be interested to see the results of this. The wording in the opinions is going to be even more important than the ruling, I think.

Thankfully, the court struck down Chevron last year.

What I don't think got enough airing is that Congress still has to be complicit under the emergency powers act for POTUS tariffs to survive.

All congress has to do to eliminate POTUS power to Tariff under the Emergency Powers Act is to pass a joint resolution that the thing that POTUS claimed is an emergency isn't really an emergency.

POTUS could declare another emergency, but congress could continually shut him down.

It's just that Congress doesn't want to claim that Trump's emergency isn't really an emergency.

This would be just another shot in the gut to the administrative state.

If SCOTUS says that Congress can't allow POTUS to pass tariffs in an emergency, there are a lot of other things that Congress won't be allowed to pass to the administrative state. I'm not sure what all of these would be yet, but lawyers are inventive.

For example, I can't think of an argument that would restrict POTUS from passing tariffs here that wouldn't have also restricted Biden's forgiveness of student loans. Both are specifically related to taxes and the power of the purse. Another thing that would be in the crosshairs would have been Obamacare.

I don't see how America loses in this case. Either Trump gets to tariff out the wazoo, or SCOTUS provides yet another spear to plaintiffs in suits against the administrative state.

Turleys take:

...Justice Barrett and Gorsuch had some doubts about the other side but repeatedly returned to the sweeping authority claimed by the President. Even Chief Justice Roberts states repeatedly and categorically that the tariffs are a tax...

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) November 5, 2025

...Keep in mind, as noted by the challengers, the Administration has a great deal of alternative options to maintain tariffs. However, given this argument, Congress may want to address the tariffs if it wants to avoid what Justice Barrett called "a mess" of reimbursements.

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) November 5, 2025

BusterAg said:

---

What I don't think got enough airing is that Congress still has to be complicit under the emergency powers act for POTUS tariffs to survive.

All congress has to do to eliminate POTUS power to Tariff under the Emergency Powers Act is to pass a joint resolution that the thing that POTUS claimed is an emergency isn't really an emergency.

POTUS could declare another emergency, but congress could continually shut him down.

It's just that Congress doesn't want to claim that Trump's emergency isn't really an emergency.

---

This was addressed, though, and everybody conceded that you'd need a veto-proof majority for Congress to say that, as if POTUS isn't on board with ending the emergency, he can veto it.

I think America losses if Trump wins for the exact reasons you raise. It would put power back in the Executive which means crap like the student loan forgiveness happens again. There is a reason Congress is in the first Article of the Constitution. It was intended to wield the most power of the three branches because it was the most accountable to the people.

BusterAg said:

---

What I don't think got enough airing is that Congress still has to be complicit under the emergency powers act for POTUS tariffs to survive.

All congress has to do to eliminate POTUS power to Tariff under the Emergency Powers Act is to pass a joint resolution that the thing that POTUS claimed is an emergency isn't really an emergency.

POTUS could declare another emergency, but congress could continually shut him down.

It's just that Congress doesn't want to claim that Trump's emergency isn't really an emergency.

---

I've got a better chance of banging Sydney Sweeney tonight than Congress doing anything to stop this.

HTownAg98 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

What I don't think got enough airing is that Congress still has to be complicit under the emergency powers act for POTUS tariffs to survive.

All congress has to do to eliminate POTUS power to Tariff under the Emergency Powers Act is to pass a joint resolution that the thing that POTUS claimed is an emergency isn't really an emergency.

POTUS could declare another emergency, but congress could continually shut him down.

It's just that Congress doesn't want to claim that Trump's emergency isn't really an emergency.

---

I've got a better chance of banging Sydney Sweeney tonight than Congress doing anything to stop this.

---

Wrap it up!

samurai_science said:

---

Which tariffs though, not all are up at the Supreme Courts. Only certain ones ordered under the war powers or whatever. Most wont go away.

---

I believe just IEEPA and the reciprocal/baseline tariffs.

He has power to execute under 232/301

Im Gipper said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

To be honest, putting a 50% tariff on gas powered foreign cars probably is something most on the right would support.
.

---

Wrong!

---

Yes you are.

Can you back up your statement? Because nothing says America first like tariffing foreign batteries v American gas.

But maybe you and yours may differ. To each its own.