Six Justices Said No, Trump Did It Anyway: Jul 7

Rachel: Welcome to Red Flag. I'm Rachel, and we've got a big one today. The Supreme Court just torched Trump's tariffs. Six-three. Jordyn: I'm Jordyn and yeah, within hours he's calling out his own nominees as disloyal, his own picks. Gorsuch and Barrett, no less. That's not a footnote, that's a headline. Right, but here's what nobody's talking about yet. He already pivoted same-day. Oh, you're going to love this part. There's this dusty old 1974 law nobody's ever actually used, and it's got an expiration date. Wait, an expiration date like a real deadline? July 24th, hard stop, 15% cap, which means Congress either shows up for a real vote this time or... Rachel: Or they go quiet again, yeah. Jordyn: We're also getting into who's actually eating these tariff costs. Spoiler, it's not who the administration says. Groceries, closets, all of it. Rachel: Jordyn: We'll break down where that money is really going. And Rachel, don't forget the same six justices who slapped Trump on tariffs just handed him way more power over independent agencies. Cool, cool. Very consistent. Very principled. We'll get into whether that's a coincidence. Plus a friendly fire round, giving Democrats credit where it's due. Shocking, I know. Okay, let's start with the fireworks. The Cold Open. Let's hear what he actually said. NPR had it plain: February twentieth Supreme Court six three Trump's tariffs are illegal. Rachel: Six three, and two of those six votes were his own picks, Gorsuch, Barrett. Jordyn: Didn't matter. NBC News caught him calling them very unpatriotic and disloyal to the Constitution. Rachel: His own nominees, that's rough. Jordyn: He praised the three who dissented instead. Rachel: Cool, cool, cool, cool. So here's my question. Jordyn: Go for it. Rachel: What did that tantrum cost taxpayers? Because he didn't stop collecting, he just switched laws. Jordyn: Same-day, basically. New authority, same money coming in. Rachel: So before we get mad about the meltdown, let's check the receipt. What did the ruling actually say, and what's it billing us? Okay, so let's run the actual receipt here. NPR reported it, six-three Learning Resources versus Trump, and Roberts wrote the majority himself. Jordyn: And he didn't write it alone. Gorsuch and Barrett signed on. Three Trump picks just told him IEEPA never gave him this power. Rachel: Is that even shocking, though? A conservative court siding against Trump? Jordyn: Depends who you ask. Roberts leaned on what's called the Major Questions Doctrine. Speaker 3: Doctrine.--If, you're reshaping the whole economy, Congress has to say so in plain language; IEEPA never once says tariffs. Rachel: Meanwhile, Thomas, Alito and Kavanaugh dissented, and Kavanaughs dissent is the one that should worry every importer in the country. Why? He flagged the exposure-the Tax Foundation put it north of a hundred thirty billion dollars already collected from importers that could now be owed back-that's not a rounding error. Speaker 3: So "other countries are paying for it" turns out to mean American importers, and now maybe a refund nobody budgeted for. Rachel: Exactly. The promise was tariffs at zero cost to us. The receipt says: Illegal legal pathway plus a nine figure cleanup. Speaker 3: up; and the Administration did not sit with that loss quietly. Jordyn: Same-day, practically. Speaker 3: Which is exactly why, hours later, they reached for Section one twenty two. Rachel: Compiling that gut punch, hours later Trump signs Proclamation one one zero one two-same day. How does a president have a law like that just waiting in a drawer? Jordyn: OK, real talk: Section one twenty two of the Trade Act of nineteen seventy four is like an ingredient nobody's ever tested on skin, never used, technically legal, and it's been sitting on the shelf since Nixon. Rachel: Never? Fifty two years and nobody touched it? Speaker 3: Not once; but it comes with a cap at fifteen per cent hard stop at a hundred and fifty days unless Congress votes to extend. Rachel: So the 10% version kicks in February 24th. Jordyn: White Case tracked the whole timeline. Ten per cent effective 12.01 a.m. and by law it expires 12.01 a.m. July 24th. That's the legal. Rachel: And within 24 hours he's already saying he wants more. Wants the full fifteen. Jordyn: Right." White Case flagged that too: a Truth Social post floating the max rate. No formal order though, just a promise sitting next to another promise. Rachel: Shocking. Speaker 4: Ha, ha, ha! Jordyn: So mark the calendar, July twenty-fourth twelve o one a m, that clock doesn't care who's mad about it. Rachel: And whether that clock gets reset depends entirely on Congress, a Congress that's already shown its hand once. Jordyn: Thanks for watching! Rachel: Shifting angle, Congress already said "no" twice! Twice, with a veto pen waiting? I'll believe it when I see a signature. Speaker 3: February, the House passed a two fifteen to two eleven disapproving Trump's Canada tariff; six Republicans crossed, Hurd among them: that's from Congresswoman Pettersens own release. Rachel: And the Senate? Speaker 3: Fifty-one to forty-seven, blocking the broader global tariffs, Collins, Murkowski, McConnell and Paul went with Democrats. Democrats, according to the Hills count. Rachel: McConnell Speaker 3: Wow. Rachel: on the record against Trump tariffs? Speaker 3: Yep, and Politico reported the White House ran a full pressure campaign trying to flip holdouts like Bacon before that House vote. Rachel: So how many of those yes votes were actually free choices? Speaker 3: Exactly the question nobody's asking. Two recorded votes and Trump shrugged off both because he had the veto pen in his pocket. Rachel: Right, and a resolution he's guaranteed to veto isn't accountability. The probability is a press release with a roll call attached. Speaker 3: Fair; but on the record still means something. Till January 24, there's no veto play; Congress either extends Section 122 or it just expires. Rachel: So the real test isn't another symbolic vote, it's whether they touch the actual expiration date. Building on that veto problem the The administration isn't just sitting on one backup plan, they've staged three. Jordyn: Three? Rachel: Section 301 and Section 232 investigations are already running. No 15% cap, no July 24 deadline. Jordyn: Wait, no cap at all? Rachel: None! Brownstein's Tariffstool deadline tracker shows it. These statutes don't have Section 122's built-in ceiling. Jordyn: Okay, but here's the one that stopped me cold. A trade guide called Tariffstool is reporting a Section 301 proposal floating 12.5 percent duties on 46 countries China, Vietnam, India, Japan time to land right before July 24. Rachel: So the surcharge doesn't expire, it just rebrands. Jordyn: And Kelly Drye's trade team flagged something worse Trump could just let Section 122 lapse declare a fresh emergency And re start the whole one hundred fifty day clock! Rachel: Wait, wait, restart it? That guts the entire point of having a time limit! That's the headline for me. Kelly Drye called it a de facto perpetual tariff, a statute built to expire used to never expire. And then there's the museum piece, Section 338, a nineteen thirties retaliatory power, tariffs up to fifty per cent. Never once used." Dust it off after ninety plus years? Apparently nothing in that law says it can't be. So July twenty fourth isn't an ending. It's a menu! And wait till you see what the Supreme Court itself was doing with power this term. Speaker 3: Sure. Jordyn: Shifting gears, Axios just reframed that tariff win. Rachel: How so? Jordyn: They looked at the whole court's term. Power keeps moving away from Congress toward the presidency and toward the court itself. Rachel: The court hoards power for the court. Bold move. Jordyn: It's not just a vibe, it's Trump v. Slaughter. Six-three, they killed Humphreys Executor. Ninety-one years old, gone. Rachel: Wait, that's the case keeping independent agencies independent? Jordyn: Was. Now Trump can fire FTC commissioners whenever he wants. Legal scholar Steve Vladeck told Axios the real headline of the term was Supreme Court rules for itself 6-3. Rachel: Cute. Jordyn: And here's my problem. The same six justices who told Trump tariffs belonged to Congress in February just handed him the FTC in July! Rachel: Okay, but slow down: what does that cost somebody who isn't reading opinions for fun? Jordyn: A weaker FTC means whoever runs it answers to the President, not the statute. Antitrust cases, data privacy, junk fees-all of it now bends toward whoever's in the Oval Office. So it's not principle, it's whichever ruling keeps the court's own leverage intact. Rachel: Intact-that's my read; Congress loses either way-only the winner changes. Consistent inconsistency-very judicial of them. I'll allow it. Fine, but we still don't have an answer for July twenty fourth, and that date bites regardless of theory. Which some senators actually tried to get ahead of months before any of this. Building on that mess, plot twist, the left actually nailed something this week. Jordyn: Careful, that might sprain something. Rachel: I'm serious. Ron Wyden and Senate Democrats forced those tariff disapproval votes using Congressional Review Act tools most Republicans wouldn't touch. Jordyn: And his whole floor argument was tariffs are just attacks on families. Rachel: Which is basically what Rand Paul's been shouting since day one. same diagnosis, opposite jersey. Jordyn: Even some conservative economists backed that math. Rachel: Right, so credit where it's due. Jordyn: Sure, but agreeing tariffs are expensive isn't the same as Democrats having an actual alternative. It's just more tariffs pointed somewhere else. Rachel: Same disease, no cure. Jordyn: Exactly. So if everyone agrees this thing is costing us, who's got the actual number on what it's costing us? Rachel: Okay, with that fight settled, let's talk actual math, because this is my favorite kind of receipt. Speaker 4: The kind with lots of zeros. Rachel: The York Fed found something wild. Through most of twenty twenty five more than ninety percent of tariff costs landed on American businesses and shoppers, not the countries getting taxed. Speaker 4: So the they'll pay for it plan just didn't happen? Rachel: Correct. And Yale Budget Lab tracked the effective global tariff rate, thirteen point seven percent before the ruling. Section One Twenty-Two drops that to roughly eight percent. Speaker 4: Mm-hmm. Speaker 5: Which sounds like relief until you remember a January 2025. That number was 3%. Rachel: Exactly. Still nearly triple where we started. Speaker 5: Okay, real talk in closet terms. Your $40 t-shirt is still carrying tariff weight it didn't have last year. Rachel: And the Tax Foundation puts total collections under the now How dead IEEPA authority alone above one hundred and sixty billion dollars. Speaker 5: A hundred and sixty billion dollars collected under a law the Supreme Court just said didn't exist? Rachel: Receipts don't get more literal than that. Speaker 5: So if Section 122 just lapses on the 24th with nothing replacing it, what happens to prices? Some tax policy researchers project costs on things like textiles and apparel. Rachel: could fall back near, maybe even below, 2024 levels, which means the outcome on July 24th depends entirely on which scenario Washington picks. And there are three very different ones on the table. Building on that math, let's book the odds for July 24th. Three scenarios. Real money. Jordyn: Okay, casino voice activated. Scenario one, Congress actually extends Section 122. Rachel: Which means an actual floor vote, something we've established most Republicans have dodged all year. Jordyn: Scenario two, Section 301 lands first and just swallows Section 122. Whole. No cap, no clock. Rachel: Uncapped. That's the part that should scare people. Speaker 4: Scenario three, my personal favorite chaos option: Skadden Holland Knights read on the ruling suggest the tariff could genuinely lapse, imports briefly snap back to pre Rachel: IEEPA rates. Jordyn: Briefly. Rachel: Briefly: then new duties refill the gap within days. It's a blink, not a window. Speaker 3: I'm betting on scenario two. This Administration doesn't sit still waiting on Congress. Rachel: I'll take three, only because nobody in that building wants their name on a vote before the midterms. Speaker 3: Fair. And there's a bill sitting right there, the Reclaim Trade Powers Act, that would permanently hand tariff authority back to Congress. Bipartisan, actually. Bipartisan and going nowhere. No real path to passage. So place your bets. One date decides which world we're in. Building on that deadline, mark your calendar: July 24th, watch for an actual floor vote, not a statement. Rachel: Right. Silence is the tell. No vote means the workaround already won, and Section 122 just rolls into whatever comes next. Speaker 3: Congress doesn't have to lose on purpose, it just has to not show up. Rachel: And that's the split screen this whole episode's been about: The court took tariff power away in February. Speaker 3: Then handed the presidency, and itself more power everywhere else; Slaughter, agencies, the works. Rachel: One win doesn't cover the scoreboard. Speaker 3: No confetti yet. Watch the vote count, not the press release. Rachel: July 24th, set a reminder. Speaker 3: Okay, quick gut check before we go. Six-three and two of those votes were Trump's own picks. Rachel: Still not over that, right? Speaker 3: But the real headline now is July 24th. That's when Section 122 expires and Congress finally has a real deadline. Rachel: Which is kind of the whole story, honestly. The court reined him in on tariffs and handed him more power everywhere else. Watch what Congress does with that window. Speaker 3: Exactly. A floor vote or dead silence. That's the tell. Rachel: If this got you yelling at your car radio, send it to the friend who keeps defending the tariffs at- at dinner. Speaker 3: Subscribe wherever you're listening, leave us a rating, it genuinely helps politically homeless people find this show. We'll be tracking every one of these deadlines. Thanks for hanging out with us. Bye, everybody.