After SCOTUS Ruling, President Trump Has MANY Plan “B” Options — Here’s What He’ll Do

Uncategorized
Don Arpeggio

In case you missed it, the Supreme Court finally ruled this morning on President Trump’s IEEPA Tariffs, striking them down in a 6-3 ruling.

Details here in case you missed it:

BREAKING: SUPREME COURT RULES 6-3 ON TRUMP’S TARIFFS

So is that it?

Are Tariffs over?

Trump defeated?

Hardly!

He has many Plan B options and it looks like he will be deploying all of them!

We can start with Justice Kavanaugh who gave the roadmap to President Trump on a silver platter in his dissenting opinion:

Closer look here:

FULL TEXT HERE:

KAVANAUGH, J., dissenting

In my view, as I will explain, the major questions canon does not control here for two alternative and independent reasons.

First, the statutory text, history, and precedent constitute “clear congressional authorization” for the President to impose tariffs under IEEPA. In particular, throughout American history, Presidents have commonly imposed tariffs as a means to “regulate . . . importation.” So tariffs were not an “unheralded” power when Congress enacted IEEPA in 1977 and authorized the President to “regulate . . . importation” of foreign goods. Therefore, the major questions doctrine is satisfied here. Cf. Biden v. Missouri, 595 U. S. 87 (2022) (per curiam).

Second, in any event, the Court has never before applied the major questions doctrine in the foreign affairs context, including foreign trade. Rather, as Justice Robert Jackson summarized and remains true, this Court has always recognized the “unwisdom of requiring Congress in this field of governmental power to lay down narrowly definite standards by which the President is to be governed.” Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U. S. 579, 636, n. 2 (1952) (concurring opinion) (quoting United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U. S. 304, 321–322 (1936)). In foreign affairs cases, courts read the statute as written and do not employ the major questions doctrine as a thumb on the scale against the President.

Although I firmly disagree with the Court’s holding today, the decision might not substantially constrain a President’s ability to order tariffs going forward. That is because numerous other federal statutes authorize the President to impose tariffs and might justify most (if not all) of the tariffs at issue in this case—albeit perhaps with a few additional procedural steps that IEEPA, as an emergency statute, does not require. Those statutes include, for example, the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (Section 232); the Trade Act of 1974 (Sections 122, 201, and 301); and the Tariff Act of 1930 (Section 338). In essence, the Court today concludes that the President checked the wrong statutory box by relying on IEEPA rather than another statute to impose these tariffs.

In the meantime, however, the interim effects of the Court’s decision could be substantial. The United States may be required to refund billions of dollars to importers who paid the IEEPA tariffs, even though some importers may have already passed on costs to consumers or others. As was acknowledged at oral argument, the refund process is likely to be a “mess.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 153–155. In addition, according to the Government, the IEEPA tariffs have helped facilitate trade deals worth trillions of dollars—including with foreign nations from China to the United Kingdom to Japan, and more. The Court’s decision could generate uncertainty regarding those trade arrangements.

In any event, the only issue before the Court today is one of law. In light of the statutory text, longstanding historical practice, and relevant Supreme Court precedents, I would conclude that IEEPA authorizes the President to “regulate . . . importation” by imposing tariffs on foreign imports during declared national emergencies. I therefore respectfully dissent.

Here is Howard Lutnick from several months ago confirming Trump will implement all of these options if he loses on IEEPA:

Backup video here:

In fact, it’s starting already.

President Trump just announced a global 10% Tariff under Section 122:

Oh man, you have to love this….

President Trump also just declared he was trying to be a “Good Boy” but now the gloves are off and it’s “Bad Boy” time!

Looks like he’s going full strength ahead and probably even more so than before!

Backup here since X/Twitter is crashing bad today:

Fear not my friends….Tariffs are not going anywhere.

The only thing that happened today is that President Trump just sprung into overdrive!

Game on.

We are pleased to announce our partnership with Hunter Tylo.

Many of you will recognize her as the actress who stared in such daytime dramas as All My Children and The Bold and the Beautiful. PEOPLE Magazine twice named her one of the world’s 50 most beautiful people. She was also successful in suing Aaron Spelling over his firing her from Melrose Place for not aborting her child, a case which is widely recognized in supporting a Mother’s rights.

Hunter is coming onto TUC YouTube LIVE this Thursday at 4pm EST to discuss her experiences in Hollywood and why she left, choosing rather to pursue YASHA’UA and the Torah. As a member of our community, she has also opened up a channel at our TUC Discord to discuss a number of pressing issues, like narcissistic abuse.

Here is your TUC Discord invite link. https://discord.gg/zFPnExWT

Be sure to introduce yourself and then head right on over to her room, “Getting Real with Hunter”.

We hope our partnership with Tylo will be an ongoing one.