Trump Critiques Supreme Court Nominees
In a recent fundraiser, President Trump expressed his discontent with two Supreme Court justices after they ruled against him in a tariff case last month.
During an event for the National Republican Congressional Committee, he stated, “This country’s bad courts are making us pay a tremendous amount of money,” adding that the Supreme Court’s decisions cost the nation hundreds of billions. “They couldn’t care less,” he remarked.
Trump went on to say he was disappointed with Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, who he claimed “disgust” him due to their votes. “Not that it matters, but they make me feel bad because they’re bad for our country,” he noted.
The justices were part of a ruling that stated President Trump can’t invoke the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to unilaterally impose tariffs. This law, enacted in 1977, does not include specific mention of tariffs but has underpinned Trump’s trade policies that affected many nations.
According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, these tariffs, implemented through IEEPA, accounted for $133 billion for the fiscal years 2025 and 2026. The Supreme Court did not make clear if this amount would need to be refunded.
Following the ruling, Trump has been exploring other avenues for imposing tariffs, which can often be more complex. He mentioned using Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act to set a general 15% tariff, although this can only last for five months without Congress’s backing.
Additionally, the administration is looking into suspicions that major trading partners may be discriminating against U.S. products, which could lead to tariffs lasting four years if substantiated.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, another of Trump’s appointees, disagreed with the president’s views, suggesting that IEEPA could still permit lesser measures, including tariffs, if it could allow for total trade restrictions with another country. He also indicated that the Supreme Court’s ruling shouldn’t entirely prevent the president from applying similar tariffs through different legal frameworks.
White House trade adviser Peter Navarro maintained that the ruling was the “best possible outcome” for the Trump administration. He asserted that while they lost on IEEPA tariffs, the judges acknowledged the legality of other laws used to enforce tariffs, which is a positive acknowledgment of their approach.
These comments come in the wake of Chief Justice John Roberts highlighting the growing hostility directed at the judiciary, emphasizing the need for respect towards judges who strive to make fair decisions despite facing criticism.
