Today we are two days away from the end of the Winter Olympics, which means that from my perspective we’re finally getting to the interesting part. Yesterday was the women’s hockey gold medal game and the men’s curling semifinals, while today we had the men’s hockey semifinals and the women’s curling semifinals. Add on the top of that the fact that annual actuarial opinions are due in a week, and I have a lot on my mind right now.

So, naturally, today was when SCOTUS finally released its opinions in the IEEPA tariffs cases…

Recall that two different cases from lower courts that were consolidated for argument at the Supreme Court. The case I had been following more was V.O.S. Selections v. Trump, which came through the Court of International Trade and then the Federal Circuit. In that case, the plaintiffs were arguing that two different families of tariffs that Trump promulgated by executive order in 2025, citing the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) as his source of statutory authority to do so, were not lawful under that act. Whereas in the other case on which the D.C. Circuit had yet to take action, Learning Resources v. Trump, plaintiffs argued that IEEPA does not provide the President with a source of authority to enact tariffs, period.

History will, somewhat randomly, refer to today’s SCOTUS holding as Learning Resources rather than V.O.S. Selections. This is both appropriate and ironic. The ironic part comes from the fact that SCOTUS actually ordered today for the original lawsuit filed by Learning Resources and its fellow plaintiffs to be dismissed, on the grounds that it was filed in the wrong jurisdiction. The appropriate part comes from the fact that, by a 6-3 margin, SCOTUS has adopted the argument advanced by the Learning Resources plaintiffs, as opposed to that advanced by the V.O.S. Selections plaintiffs: namely, IEEPA does not provide the President with any authority to enact tariffs.

The outcome and voting lineup were just as I (along with many others) had predicted coming out of November’s oral argument: 6-3 to strike down the tariffs, with the dissenters being Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh. Roberts had the main opinion, which is relatively brief at 21 pages, although the three liberals declined to join the portion of his opinion that invokes Roberts’ major questions doctrine. Kavanaugh’s principal dissent, joined by the two arch-conservatives, is three times as long, at 63 pages. There is also a 46-page Gorsuch concurrence whose main purpose appears to be to throw shade at the judgment of every other justice on the Court except for Roberts; a 4-page Barrett concurrence that seemingly exists solely to rebut what Gorsuch said about her in his concurrence; and a 7-page Kagan concurrence (joined by the other two liberals) explaining why there was no need to invoke the major questions doctrine to arrive at the majority’s result. Finally, at the ideological far ends of the Court, there is also an 18-page Thomas dissent articulating his view that it would not be unconstitutional (as many have argued) for Congress to delegate unfettered tariff authority to the President; and there is a 5-page Jackson concurrence pointing out that this is actually a very easy case to resolve, assuming that one is willing to place weight on legislative history from the enactment of IEEPA, which has become extremely unfashionable in the 21st century as a technique of statutory interpretation.

With all that, it has become more clear why it took three-and-a-half months for the Court to produce its opinions, even though the case was of the highest possible national interest.

Trump did not take the news well, referring to the justices who voted with the majority–two of whom he appointed–as “fools and lap dogs”, and saying specifically of his appointees Gorsuch and Barrett that they were “an embarrassment to their families.” This prompted retired Judge Luttig, once on the shortlist for the SCOTUS seats that went to Roberts and Alito, to say that today marked “the president’s most spectacular display yet of his utter disrespect for the Constitution and his contempt for the Supreme Court of the United States.”

So, what happens now?

It would appear that a whole host of tariffs already collected by the U.S. government are unlawful, and refunds are owed. This may be a long and complicated process. Per an article from September in Lawfare:

“If the IEEPA tariffs are ultimately struck down by the Supreme Court, importers will not receive refund checks automatically; they must affirmatively request refunds through the proper channels. The likely pathways are (a) [Post Summary Corrections] for unliquidated entries; (b) protests for liquidated entries; and, if necessary, (c) litigation at the [Court for International Trade] to enforce refund rights.”

And to the extent importers receive refunds, will those funds ultimately flow to the consumers who, per recent academic research, bore the brunt of the tariffs? Probably not, prompting the NYTimes to write tonight that “the lack of refunds for consumers is likely to be another political liability for the Trump administration”.

Looking forward rather than backwards, Trump remains unrepentant about his tariff-centric economic policies. Today he issued a new executive order, applying clear authority granted to the President (but never previously used) under the Trade Act of 1974, imposing a uniform 10% tariff on imports from all countries, with some exclusions (such as goods covered under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement). However, unlike his attempted IEEPA tariffs, Trade Act tariffs require explicit Congressional approval in order to persist beyond 150 days. This new global tariff will take effect on Tuesday, which is also the date of Trump’s State of the Union address; that should be an interesting evening.

What was it Ford said when Nixon resigned, “our long national nightmare is over”? Well, today “our long Minnesota nightmare” may be over: Tom Homan announced at a press conference the impending end of Operation Metro Surge.

However, D.C. remains at loggerheads over DHS funding. Last week House Democrats prepared a 10-point list of demands, but it wasn’t until last night that the White House made an offer, which Democrats said was inadequate. Today the Senate took up a vote to pass the DHS funding bill that had previously passed the house, but Democrats remained united (save for Fetterman) and the bill failed. As such funding for the TSA, FEMA, and other arms of the DHS will expire on Saturday, although ICE and the CBP will continue thanks to funding previously provided within the OBBBA.

Earlier in the week Speaker Johnson found himself unable, with his reduced legislative margin, to continue playing fast and loose with House rules in order to prevent any votes on Trump’s IEEPA tariffs. As such, there was a House vote this week to cancel Trump’s 25% tariff on Canada, and it passed, 219-211, with six Republicans defecting. The Senate had previously passed a similar measure three months ago, but one imagines Trump will veto it. Still, it is a sign of a crack in the Republicans’ Trumpist unity.

This week the House passed an election reform bill known as the SAVE Act, along largely partisan lines (218-213). The bill would require proof of U.S. citizenship in order to register to vote; based on experience from a similar law in Kansas, the number of U.S. citizens that would likely be prevented from voting under this requirement is orders of magnitude greater than the number of non-U.S. citizens currently on the voter rolls. The bill faces a likely filibuster in the Senate.

Turning to judicial news, this week a federal grand jury in D.C. refused to return an indictment against 6 sitting members of Congress, veterans all, who had released a video in November reminding military troops that they do not need to follow illegal orders. Trump had reacted very badly to the video, referring to it as “seditious behavior” potentially punishable by death. Separately, Defense Secretary Hegseth had sought to reduce the retirement rank and pay of the most prominent of the six, Senator Kelly (D-AZ), in reaction to the video; but today a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction to the senator in his lawsuit (Kelly v. Hegseth) to prevent Hegseth from taking these actions, on the grounds that they violated Kelly’s 1st Amendment rights.

This week Trump threatened to block the opening of the Gordie Howe International Bridge, the new road connection between Detroit and Windsor paid for by the Canadian government. It turns out that shortly before making that threat, his Commerce Secretary was actively lobbied by the billionaire who owns the existing bridge linking the two cities, the Ambassador Bridge.

But believe it or not, that was neither the worst nor most corrupt Trump action of late in the world of transportation. Trump has frozen $16 billion in federal funding for the Hudson River train tunnel connecting New Jersey and New York; however, per reporting, he told Senator Schumer he would un-freeze the funds if both Dulles International Airport and New York’s Penn Station were to be renamed after Donald J. Trump. Last week a federal judge ordered that funding be restored, but stayed that ruling until today; and today the 2nd Circuit declined to issue an emergency stay, putting the court ruling into force.

On Saturday there was a by-election in Houston to fill the Congressional seat in the 18th, a safely Democratic district that once belonged to President Matt Santos. Thanks to first Texas Republican intransigence, and then a failure of any candidate to garner 50% of the vote in a jungle general, this seat had been vacant for about 11 months. This weekend’s runoff election involved two Democratic candidates, with the winner seated yesterday. That makes the House currently 218-214 Republican, with 3 open seats: Governor Sherrill’s old seat (to be filled in April), MTG’s old seat (to be filled in March), and a seemingly safe Republican seat (under the old map, not the post-Proposition 50 map) in the extreme NE corner of California (to be filled in August).

Today the latest, brief, government shutdown ended, a day later than originally expected. While Trump had endorsed the compromise passed last week by the Senate and urged its swift enactment, it took Speaker Johnson an extra day to get his ducks in a row. The bill passed, 217-214, which looks deceptively like the Republicans’ current House margin. However looks are a little misleading here: 21 Democrats, mostly moderates (e.g., the retiring Jared Golden) and appropriators (e.g., the retiring Steny Hoyer), supported the bill while 21 Republicans, mostly Freedom Caucus types (e.g., Biggs, Boebert, and Massie), opposed the bill. Now the hard work begins, of trying to negotiate a compromise on DHS funding in a post-Minneapolis world in which the Democratic base is increasingly supportive of the previously radical position of defunding ICE.

Returning to Saturday, there was a very interesting election result out of Texas, in a by-election for a State Senate seat in Tarrant County. Tarrant, home to Fort Worth, is a rare example of a county that is both urban and staunchly Republican. In 2022, this State Senate seat went 60-40 to the Republican incumbent. That incumbent resigned in 2025 to become the Acting Comptroller in Texas, so there was a by-election in November which attracted 2 Republican and 1 Democratic candidates. The 2 Republicans together outpolled the Democrat, 52.6 – 47.4; however, neither Republican garnered a majority, so a runoff was scheduled for this past weekend. In that runoff, the Democrat won 57.2 – 42.8, despite reportedly being out-spent 7 to 1 and despite Trump having thrice posted on social media in support of the Republican. I keep seeing reporting that Trump won this State Senate district by 17 points in 2024, so roughly 58-41, although I have not been able to verify that myself; Tarrant County as a whole went to Trump but by a much smaller margin. Quite a result for the Democrats.

Finally, today a federal lawsuit (AAUP vs. DHS) was filed, asserting that Trump’s Gold Card immigration visa program is illegal. What I didn’t realize until the reading the lawsuit is that the way the Trump administration has implemented his Gold Card concept is by “treating a payment to [the] Commerce Department as evidence of statutory eligibility for EB-1 [extraordinary ability] and EB-2 [exceptional ability] visas, and expediting consideration of applications from individuals who make the payment.” As such, plaintiffs argue that “the Gold Card program overrides Congress’s choices—both as to who qualifies for employment-based immigration and how and under what conditions agencies may collect revenue… [and] does so at the expense of qualified EB-1 and EB-2 applicants, who are effectively crowded out of limited annual visa allotments as visas are steered to Gold Card recipients.”