In chess, losing a piece doesn’t mean losing the game—it’s how you respond that defines the match. And let me tell you, the response here was something. On Thursday, the Trump administration faced a significant legal setback when the Supreme Court ruled against its use of emergency powers to impose sweeping global tariffs. The decision sent shockwaves through Washington and had critics ready to pop the champagne.

But they celebrated too soon.

The Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling determined that President Trump exceeded his authority when using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to levy tariffs on imports from nearly every country in the world. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, argued that the president had asserted “extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration and scope” without clear statutory authorization. The Constitution, Roberts reminded everyone, grants Congress—not the executive branch—the power to impose taxes.

Fair enough. I’m not going to argue with separation of powers—that’s Constitution 101, and conservatives have championed these principles long before this case landed on the docket.

The dissent tells a different story

But here’s what the breathless headlines didn’t mention. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, offered a sharp counterpoint worth reading. The dissent argued that while IEEPA may have been the wrong legal vehicle, the ruling “might not substantially constrain a President’s ability to order tariffs going forward.” Kavanaugh pointed to multiple alternative statutes—Section 232, Section 301, Section 122—that could justify most, if not all, of the same tariffs.

Translation? The president checked the wrong box on the form. That’s it.

The administration didn’t blink

Within hours of the ruling, President Trump signed a proclamation imposing a new 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. The tariffs take effect February 24th. Simultaneously, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer announced investigations into “most major trading partners” under Section 301, targeting discriminatory and unfair trade practices.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent appeared on Fox News to deliver the message Americans needed to hear:

From Breitbart:
Within three days, the president can put on the Section 122 10% global tariffs. So, at Treasury, for the full year 2026, we foresee no decrease in revenue. But, again, it’s this instantaneous power that the president has, but now that he’s going to have to—if he wants to negotiate with these countries, he does have the right to say, I can embargo all your products.

No decrease in revenue. Let that sink in for a moment.

Here’s what the critics miss

Now, I get a little frustrated when I watch the coverage. The Supreme Court didn’t say tariffs are unconstitutional. It didn’t say protecting American workers through trade policy is wrong. It said the president used the wrong statute. That’s a procedural hiccup, not a philosophical repudiation—so why is everyone acting like the sky fell?

What happened Thursday actually demonstrates something refreshing: an administration that came prepared. While Democratic governors like Gavin Newsom and JB Pritzker rushed to demand refund checks—because apparently $130 billion is just going to materialize in voter mailboxes—the grown-ups were already three moves ahead implementing Plan B.

President Trump made his displeasure clear, calling the ruling “deeply disappointing.” I get it. But constitutional guardrails exist for good reason, and they cut both ways. What matters is whether America-first trade policy survives.

It has. The tariffs continue. The revenue projections hold. The game continues—and this administration isn’t leaving the board.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Trump’s emergency-powers tariffs exceeded executive authority.
• Justice Kavanaugh’s dissent noted alternative statutes could achieve identical trade goals.
• Trump signed new 10% global tariffs under Section 122 within hours of the ruling.
• Treasury Secretary Bessent projects no decrease in tariff revenue for 2026.

Sources: Breitbart, BBC, NBC News