Podcasts about ruling

John Yoo argues that the tariff ruling proves the Court is not a partisan tool, but an independent body upholding constitutional boundaries and judicial ideology. 6.1889 SCOTUS

Investigative Journalists Mandy Matney and Liz Farrell unpack a landmark victory in the Scott Spivey case after Judge Bubba Griffith denied North Myrtle Beach restaurant owner Weldon Boyd's Stand Your Ground immunity following a dramatic four-day hearing.  Mandy and Liz examine how Spivey family attorney Mark Tinsley methodically dismantled both men's credibility using their own secretly recorded phone calls, deleted Facebook messages, and prior depositions against them.  All the while... South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson has publicly tripled down on his office's refusal to prosecute Boyd and Williams.  Plus… JP Miller might be heading to a federal trial March 17th and the team asks: where in the world is Cory Fleming? Alex Murdaugh's disgraced co-conspirator has mysteriously vanished from South Carolina's prison system under a secretive Interstate Corrections Compact — and no state will confirm his whereabouts.  Episode Links Support Independent Journalism with a Premium LUNASHARK Membership

Feb 25, 2026 – Last week's Supreme Court ruling upended President Trump's sweeping tariff strategy, cutting the effective U.S. tariff rate nearly in half and sending shockwaves through global trade. Adriano Bosoni breaks down who wins and who loses...

The Supreme Court heard the long-awaited case on the legality of President Donald Trump's tariffs, and its decision fell somewhere in the middle. Trump is now expanding the tariffs using other methods. Yet now, there are also questions of whether America could be forced to pay back money from the tariffs.We'll discuss this topic and others in this episode of Crossroads.Views expressed in this video are opinions of the host and the guest, and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

In this hard-hitting 11-minute episode of The Right Side, Doug Billings reads Olathe (O-lay-thu) Kansas Public Schools Superintendent Dr. Brent Yeager's own parent letter back to him — word for word — and finishes the Supreme Court ruling from Tinker v. Des Moines that Dr. Yeager conveniently left out.Free speech does NOT protect mass student walkouts during class time, truancy, fights, or turning taxpayer-funded schools into political battlegrounds.Last Friday's walkout at Olathe Northwest High School ended with a juvenile arrest and injured students.Parents and taxpayers of Olathe and Johnson County: this is your moment.Demand the Olathe School Board immediately ban all mass walkouts during instructional hours.Education, NOT indoctrination.Timestamps:0:00 – Intro & The Crisis in Olathe1:45 – Reading Dr. Yeager's Letter4:20 – The FULL Tinker v. Des Moines Ruling7:10 – What the Law Actually Allows9:40 – Your Action Plan TonightCommentary & Opinion – February 24, 2026Full video version available on YouTube: @TheRightSideDougBillingsShare this episode with every parent you know.Tag Dr. Brent Yeager and the Olathe School Board.We're in this together, folks. Believe it. For the Republic!#OlatheSchools #BrentYeager #TinkerRuling #StudentWalkouts #Education #Indoctrination #Olathe #Taxpayers #KansasFirst #SchoolBoard #ParentsRights #Kansas #Students #Teachers #America #USASupport the show

President Trump Slams Open Border Dems, Supreme Court Tariff Ruling, Calls Out Democrat Election Fraud & More In Historic State Of The Union Address

Brady, Payton and Matt are back to talk about Owen Heinecke's ruling, the OU football coaching staff being set and JOSH PATE DID WHAT???(regarding OU) Go check out our new website! www.keyholepod.com/ If you want more OU podcasts and written articles, go check out our Patreon! www.patreon.com/ThroughTheKeyhole Don't forget to follow us on social media! Twitter: @KeyholePod Instagram & Threads: @KeyholePodcast Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeyholePod

Joyce talks about the chaos in Mexico following the killing of Cartel leader Nemesio Oseguera Cervantes by government officials, The court's ruling President Trump's tariffs are unconstitutional and stalling trade talks, and illegal lab in California with Chinese National workers, and more. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

I never thought I'd be glued to my screen watching the Supreme Court hand President Donald Trump a gut punch on live tariffs, but here we are, listeners, just days after their bombshell ruling on Friday, February 20, 2026. Picture this: I'm in my living room in Washington, D.C., coffee in hand, when the news breaks from SCOTUSblog and The New York Times—Justices Strike Down Trump's Tariffs. In the consolidated cases Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump and V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, a 6-3 majority, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, doesn't give the president the green light to slap tariffs on imports during so-called national emergencies.Trump had declared emergencies over drug trafficking from Canada and massive trade deficits, hitting Canadian goods with 25% duties and more worldwide. But Roberts' opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson on key parts, said IEEPA lets the president regulate, block, or prohibit imports—not tax them with tariffs. The Court vacated one lower court ruling and affirmed another from the Federal Circuit, sending shockwaves through Wall Street and the heartland. Even among conservatives, there was drama: Justice Neil Gorsuch and Barrett concurred but split on details, while Justice Brett Kavanaugh dissented fiercely, arguing IEEPA's text and history backed Trump's power, and slamming the majority for ignoring the major questions doctrine in foreign affairs.By evening, Trump stormed to the podium outside the White House, as captured in that fiery CNBC Television clip. "I'm absolutely ashamed of certain members of the court," he thundered, calling some justices "disloyal to the Constitution" and "unpatriotic," swayed by "foreign interests." He ripped his own appointees—praising Kavanaugh's "genius" but blasting others as an "embarrassment to their families." No backing down, though. Trump vowed revenge, signing an executive order that very day titled "Ending Certain Tariff Actions," but pivoting to new weapons: a 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act, set to kick in within days for up to 150 days or longer. He teased Section 301 investigations for unfair practices by China and others, plus fresh Section 232 probes on steel, aluminum, cars, copper—you name it.Fast-forward to Tuesday, February 24, in his State of the Union address, as ABC World News Tonight reported, Trump doubled down, framing the ruling as a bump in his America First road. Politico and Axios chronicled the fallout: lawmakers from both parties reacted, businesses cheered lower costs, but Trump's base roared approval online. The Washington Times noted his promise of "other authorities" to fight back, while Fox News called it a "major test of executive branch powers." Even The Guardian dubbed it the end of Trump's "one-man tariff war."Here I am on February 25, still buzzing. This isn't just legalese—it's a clash reshaping trade, presidential power, and maybe the Court itself. Will new tariffs survive in the D.C. Circuit or Federal Circuit? Trump's already hinting at years of fights. Clark Hill and DLA Piper analysts say uncertainty reigns, but Trump's playbook is thick.Thanks for tuning in, listeners—come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

Participants: Richard Cochinos (Desk Strategy), FX StrategistAbbas Keshvani (Desk Strategy), Asia Macro StrategistDaria Parkhomenko (Desk Strategy), FX StrategistLuis Estrada (Desk Strategy), LATAM FX Strategist* Research Analyst opinions are their published views, independent of those expressed by Desk Analysts

In a landmark ruling, The Supreme Court has struck down the sweeping global tariffs. On this episode of Market Sense, Fidelity leaders unpack the implications of this decision, explore possible next steps, and discuss what it could mean for the markets, the economy, and consumers. Bookmark the Fidelity Viewpoints Market Insights webpage for the latest on market headlines and volatility. Read the full transcript View the slides Watch the video replay

What does the Supreme Court’s decision on IEEPA actually mean for President Trump’s tariff strategy—and the future of the U.S. economy? In this episode, Lisa is joined by International Law Attorney, Nazak Nikakhtar who breaks down the high-stakes ruling that limits the president’s ability to impose tariffs under emergency powers—and explains why it may not slow Trump down at all. From Sections 232, 301, and 338 to national security-based trade actions, the administration still has powerful tools to reshape global trade. We dive into: Why the Supreme Court blocked IEEPA tariffs—and what comes next How Trump can still impose sweeping tariffs using other legal authorities The real goal behind tariffs: reducing debt, boosting U.S. manufacturing, and countering China Whether tariffs are actually a “tax” on American consumers What CPI and inflation data reveal about the real economic impact The growing decoupling between U.S. businesses and China How global supply chains—and national security—are driving trade policy The long road to rebuilding American manufacturing Nazak also explains why critics may be missing the bigger picture—and why tariffs could play a central role in reversing decades of wage stagnation and industrial decline.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This week we talk about Trump's tariffs, the Supreme Court, and negotiating leverage.We also discuss trade wars, Greenland, and the IEEPA.Recommended Book: Smoke and Ashes by Amitav GhoshTranscriptI've spoken on this show before about tariffs and about US President Trump's enthusiasm for tariffs as an underpinning of his trade policy. Last October, back in 2025 I did an episode on tariff leverage and why the concept of an ongoing trade war is so appealing to Trump—it basically gives him a large whammy on anyone he enters negotiations with, because the US market is massive and everyone wants access to it, and tariffs allow him to bring the hammer down on anyone he doesn't like, or who doesn't kowtow in what he deems to be an appropriate manner.So he can slap a large tariff on steel or pharmaceuticals or cars from whichever country he likes just before he enters negotiations with that country, and then those negotiations open with him in an advantageous spot: they have to give him things just to get those tariffs to go away—they have to negotiate just to get things back to square one.That's how it's supposed to work, anyway. What we talked about a bit back in October is TACO theory, TACO standing for Trump Always Chickens Out—the idea is that other world leaders had gotten wise to Trump's strategy, which hasn't changed since his first administration, and he has mostly been a doubling-down on that one, primary approach, to the point that they can step into these negotiations, come up with something to give him that allows him to claim that he's won, to make it look like he negotiated well, and then they get things back down to a more reasonable level; maybe not square one, but not anything world-ending, and not anything they weren't prepared and happy to give up.In some cases, though, instead of kowtowing in this way so that Trump can claim a victory, whether or not a victory was actually tallied, some countries and industries and the businesses that make up those industries have simply packed up their ball and gone home.China has long served as a counterbalance to the US in terms of being a desirable market and a hugely influential player across basically every aspect of geopolitics and the global economy, and this oppositional, antagonistic approach to trade has made the US less appealing as a trade partner, and China more appealing in comparison.So some of these entities have negotiated to a level where they could still ship their stuff to the US and US citizens would still be willing to pay what amounts to an extra tax on all these goods, because that's how tariffs work, that fee is paid by the consumers, not by the businesses or the origin countries, but others have given up and redirected their goods to other places. And while that's a big lift sometimes, the persistence of this aggression and antagonism has made it a worthwhile investment for many of these entities, because the US has become so unpredictable and unreliable that it's just not worth the headache anymore.What I'd like to talk about today is a recent Supreme Court decision related to Trump's tariffs, and what looks likely to happen next, in the wake of that ruling.—Ever since Trump stepped back into office for his second term, in January of 2025, he has aggressively instilled new and ever-growing tariffs on basically everyone, but on some of the US's most important trade partners, like Mexico and Canada, in particular.These tariffs have varied and compounded, and they've applied to strategic goods that many US presidents have tried to hobble in various ways, favoring US-made versions of steel and microchips, for instance, so that local makers of these things have an advantage over their foreign-made alternatives, or have a more balanced shot against alternatives made in parts of the world where labor is cheaper and standards are different.But this new wave of tariffs were broad based, hitting everyone to some degree, and that pain was often taken away, at least a little, after leaders kowtowed, at times even giving him literal gold-plated gifts in order to curry favor, and/or funneling money into his family's private companies and other interests, allowing him to use these tariffs as leverage for personal gain, not just national advantage, in other cases giving him what at least looked outwardly to be a negotiating win.Things spiraled pretty quickly by mid-2025, when China pushed back against these tariffs, adding their own reciprocal tariffs on US goods, and at one point extra duties on Chinese imports coming into the US hit 145%.Shortly thereafter, though, and here we see that TACO acronym proving true, once again, Trump agreed to slash these tariffs for 90 days, and around the same time, in May of 2025, a federal appeals court temporarily reinstated some of Trump's largest-scale tariffs after a lower court ruled that they couldn't persist.The remainder of 2025 was a story of Trump trying to strike individual deals with a bunch of trade partners, like South Korea, Indonesia, and India, in some cases via direct negotiation, in others with a bunch of threats that eventually led to a sort of mutual standoff that no one was particularly happy about.2026 was greeted with a threat by Trump to impose a huge wave of new tariffs on eight major European allies, those tariffs sticking around until these nations agreed to allow the US to buy Greenland, which was an obsession of Trump's at that point, but a lot of Trump's tariff posturing was derailed by a Supreme Court decision that landed in mid-February, in which the justices decided, 6 to 3, that Trump's reciprocal tariffs are unconstitutional, as setting and changing tariffs is a Congressional power, not a Presidential one.This was a serious blow to Trump and his stated policies, as pretty much all of his economic plans oriented around the idea—which most economists have said is bunk and based on fantasy, not reality, but still—that putting a bunch of tariffs on everything will allow the US to earn so much additional revenue that the deficit can be paid down.It's worth noting here that, just as those economists predicted, the deficit has only gotten larger under both Trump administrations, and in fact the growth of the US debt has sped up, not declined, despite the additional billions being pulled into government coffers by these tariffs, because the Trump administration's spending is massive, and because the losses related to tariffs are also significant. But tariffs remain center to his policy nonetheless, so this was a major blow.This ruling also seemed likely to defang a lot of Trump's threats and drain his leverage at the negotiating table, as he could no longer threaten everyone with more tariffs, practically booting them from or weakening them on the US market.So Trump was pissed, and as he tends to do, he publicly raged about the decision, which was made by a Supreme Court that is heavily stacked in his favor; which gives an indication of just how unpopular and unconstitutional all of this has been.But immediately after that decision landed, he announced that, using alternative authorities—different powers—he would be imposing a blanket 10% tariff on everything coming into the US, and the following day announced that it would be a 15% tariff on everything, instead.This does seem to be something Trump has the power to do, but he can only do it under the auspices of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, and these tariffs will only last for 150 days, max, and might also be challenged in court.Also notably, some entities, like Britain and Australia, will face higher rates than they faced under the previous tariff setup, because of how they are applied and compound with other trade barriers, or the nature of what they export to the US market, while others, including China, will see their tariffs substantially drop.Which could make things tricky, as that implies some of the previously negotiated deals have changed post-deal, or in some cases mid-negotiation; which means a lot more work to get things where everyone wants them, but also a loss of legitimacy and credibility for this administration, as they seem to be negotiating using powers they don't actually have and making promises they can't keep.All of which, rather than simplifying and clarifying things for the US market and our international trade partners, actually further complicates them, at least for now, until the dust settles.It does seem likely Trump's administration will continue to try to leverage whatever power they can in this matter, grabbing at levers that haven't been previously used, or used in this way, and those attempts will almost certainly be legally challenged, which could lead to more court cases, and a lot more uncertainty in the meantime, until those cases are figured it.It's also created new rifts within the Republican party, as Trump seems to be going after those who voted against his tariffs, or in any other way supported their removal, and he's raged against the Supreme Court justices, even those he put into place and who are ideologically aligned with the Republican party almost always, which could also lead to more fracturing within his base, leading up to the November 2026 Congressional elections.One more thing that's worth noting here is that Trump's usual tactic of trying to distract from things he doesn't want people to pay attention to is in full operation following this court case: as all this has been happening, and against the backdrop of increasingly serious allegations related to his abundant presence in the Epstein files, he's been talking more about potentially attacking Iran and releasing files on aliens, on extraterrestrials on Earth and in the US.So we're likely to see a lot more of that sort of thing in the coming months, especially if things continue to not go his way in regards to these tariffs and the hubbub surrounding them, but this story will shape global and US economics for years to come, not to mention on-the-ground realities for many people today, which should substantially impact Trump's popularity and voter behavior come November.Show Noteshttps://www.axios.com/2026/02/20/supreme-court-trump-energy-tariffshttps://www.axios.com/2026/02/20/trump-tariff-plan-section-122-trade-acthttps://www.axios.com/2026/02/20/trump-scotus-tariff-refund-battlehttps://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/21/business/economy/trump-tariffs-trade-war.htmlhttps://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/22/business/trump-tariffs-japan-indonesia.htmlhttps://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/20/us/politics/supreme-court-trump-tariffs-takeaways.htmlhttps://apnews.com/live/supreme-court-tariff-ruling-updateshttps://www.bbc.com/news/live/c0l9r67drg7thttps://heatmap.news/economy/clean-energy-tariff-rulinghttps://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/02/20/us/trump-tariffs-supreme-courthttps://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/02/supreme-court-blocks-trumps-emergency-tariffs-billions-in-refunds-may-be-owed/https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/feb/20/what-will-happen-to-trump-tariffs-after-supreme-court-verdicthttps://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/21/business/economy/tariffs-supreme-court-global-busines-reaction.htmlhttps://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/21/business/trump-deminimis-loophole-closed.htmlhttps://www.axios.com/newsletters/axios-am-5b34aa80-2020-453a-bef1-8cf648e9b3c3.htmlhttps://www.axios.com/2026/02/20/trump-tariff-plan-section-122-trade-acthttps://www.scotusblog.com/2026/02/supreme-court-strikes-down-tariffs/https://www.wsj.com/opinion/donald-trump-supreme-court-tariffs-ieepa-john-roberts-brett-kavanaugh-90daf559https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1287_4gcj.pdfhttps://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/21/us/politics/supreme-court-tariffs-conservatives.htmlhttps://www.wsj.com/economy/u-s-manufacturing-is-in-retreat-and-trumps-tariffs-arent-helping-d2af4316https://budgetlab.yale.edu/research/state-us-tariffs-scotus-ruling-updatehttps://www.kielinstitut.de/fileadmin/Dateiverwaltung/IfW-Publications/fis-import/92fb3f30-07b8-4dcf-b2bc-fbefb831f1a1-KPB201_EN.pdfhttps://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2026/02/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-imposes-a-temporary-import-duty-to-address-fundamental-international-payment-problems/https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/tariff-refunds-supreme-court-trump-rcna259968https://www.wsj.com/opinion/its-the-end-of-the-beginning-of-the-tariff-war-88a08d37https://www.axios.com/2026/02/21/trump-tariff-supreme-court-increasehttps://www.axios.com/2026/02/21/alien-files-conspiracy-theories-usa This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit letsknowthings.substack.com/subscribe

This week on REKT Vision, Mando, Rekt co-founder and author of the Mando Minutes newsletter, is joined by Spencer Gordon-Sand, founder of Orange Cap Capital and head of Moonbirds. Together, they break down the latest GDP print, crypto's price action across majors and alts, and the key technical levels that could define the next move. They also dive into the Supreme Court's ruling on tariffs and what it means for macro risk assets, alongside the latest developments in the NFT market. Binance is the world's leading blockchain ecosystem, trusted by over 300M users in 100+ countries. It offers an unmatched portfolio of digital asset products such as trading, finance, Web3, payments, and more.  

President Trump has aggressively used tariffs as an economic tool, but a US Supreme Court decision on Friday struck down his sweeping tariffs, bringing new uncertainty. The court, in a 6-to-3 decision, ruled that the president had exceeded his authority when he imposed tariffs on nearly every US trading partner last year. President Trump moved swiftly to work around the court by imposing levies using other trade powers. On Saturday, Trump said that he would raise the new global tariff rate to 15%, using a provision in a law that allows him to impose an across-the-board tariff. This measure can only be enacted for 150 days unless Congress agrees to extend it. Trump also said he would use the act to investigate other countries' unfair trade practices, which could result in additional tariffs.  What does the Supreme Court ruling mean for the president's ability to wield tariffs for geopolitical pressure? How will this impact US trading partners and existing trade deals? And what about the impact on the energy sector, from oil and gas to clean energy products?  Today on the show, Jason Bordoff speaks with two researchers from the Center on Global Energy Policy, Richard Nephew and Trevor Sutton, to unpack the ruling. Richard formerly served as the US deputy special envoy for Iran under the Biden administration, where he played a key role in negotiations over the Iran nuclear deal. From 2013-2015, Richard also served as the Principal Deputy Sanctions Coordinator at the US Department of State. Trevor focuses on the intersection of trade, climate, and industrial policy. He leads the center's program on trade and the clean energy transition. Trevor previously served as research director of the Remaking Trade for a Sustainable Future project. Credits: Hosted by Jason Bordoff and Bill Loveless. Produced by Mary Catherine O'Connor, Caroline Pitman, and Kyu Lee. Engineering by Gregory Vilfranc.  

This week on LPL Market Signals, Jeffrey Buchbinder, Chief Equity Strategist, and Dr. Jeffrey Roach, Chief Economist, discuss implications of the Supreme Court's tariff ruling and share LPL's updated strategic asset allocation guidance. Stocks responded favorably to the tariff ruling during Friday's session, locking in a solidly positive week for the S&P 500 and most global stock indexes. Tracking: #1068947

Today, Colorado Sun business reporter Tamara Chuang looks at how Colorado small businesses and big companies are responding to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that the Trump administration’s tariffs are illegal. Read more: https://coloradosun.com/2026/02/20/supreme-court-trump-tariff-colorado-implications/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this week's episode of China Insider, Miles Yu covers the 2026 winter Olympic games in the context of the ongoing US-China diplomatic rivalry and larger geopolitical implications of the games. Next, Miles unpacks the recent US Supreme Court ruling on US trade tariff policy, and how this might shift the landscape in bilateral trade negotiations between the US and China. Finally, we observe the Chinese lunar new year and Miles reviews what challenges lie ahead for the CCP regime in the year of the horse. China Insider is a weekly podcast project from Hudson Institute's China Center, hosted by China Center Director and Senior Fellow, Dr. Miles Yu, who provides weekly news that mainstream American outlets often miss, as well as in-depth commentary and analysis on the China challenge and the free world's future. 

Davids has represented Kansas' 3rd District in Congress, which includes all of Johnson County and part of Wyandotte County, since 2019. But with Kansas Sen. Roger Marshall up for reelection this year, she's openly considering a run.

So many businesses are wondering what happens next after the Supreme Court ruling denied Trump's emergency tariff's in a 6-3 vote - leaving many businesses like Beth's wondering where or how they can get that money back going forward and the process of running a business amid this chaotic period!

This is an excerpt from my podcast This Week in Geopolitics. I record new episodes every Monday so give me a follow if you would like to see more!

The Supreme Court recently ruled against tariffs imposed by the Trump Administration. We'll hear what that means for state businesses. Admissions open for NPR's student podcast challenge. Plus, stories about the family ties that make and bind us.

In hour 1 of the Mark Reardon Show, Josh Hammer, Newsweek Senior Editor at Large and host of the Josh Hammer Show, joins to discuss the Supreme Court tariff ruling as well as the shooting at Mar A Lago. Senator Eric Schmitt joins the show to discuss the patriotism shown by the USA Men's Ice Hockey team following their gold medal clinching, overtime win against Canada. He also discusses Boeing moving their headquarters back to St. Louis. In hour 2, Sue hosts, "Sue's News" where she discusses the latest trending entertainment news, this day in history, the random fact of the day and more. Mark is then joined by Ilya Shapiro, a Senior Fellow and the Director of Constitutional Studies at the Manhattan Institute. Shapiro shares his thoughts on the Supreme Court's decision on Trump's tariffs. He's later joined by KSDK Sports Director Frank Cusumano. Cusumano reacts to Team USA Hockey winning Olympic Gold over Canada, Saint Louis Basketball's big win over VCU and more. In hour 3, Mark is joined by John Ziegler, the Co-Host of the podcast, “The Death of Journalism” and a former Mediaite Columnist. Ziegler shares his reaction to leftists being upset with the USA Hockey team over their interactions with President Trump and Kash Patel as well as the Mexican cartel's attack on Puerto Vallarta. Mark is later joined by Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway. Hanaway warns businesses to start removing illegal gambling machines and more. They wrap up the show with the Audio Cut of the Day.

John Horn is an Economics Professor at the Olin School of Business at Wash U. He and Megan Lynch discuss the reaction to the Trump tariffs by the Supreme Court last week. He uses the word 'chaos' in describing what may come now following the ruling as business play a wait and see game.

The Supreme Court ruled on Friday that President Trump exceeded his authority when he imposed sweeping tariffs on imports from nearly every U.S. trading partner. Tyler Pager, Ana Swanson and Andrew Ross Sorkin of The New York Times explain what comes next.  Guest: Tyler Pager, a White House correspondent for The New York Times who covers the Trump administration. Ana Swanson, a reporter in Washington who covers trade and international economics for The New York Times. Andrew Ross Sorkin, a columnist and the founder and editor at large of DealBook. Background reading:  Mr. Trump said he would raise his new global tariff to 15 percent after the Supreme Court struck down many of his previous tariffs. The president's response underscored his insistence that he should have expansive powers to carry out his agenda as he wishes. Here are some key questions to consider on the future of the Trump administration's tariffs. Photo: Julia Demaree Nikhinson/Associated Press For more information on today's episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday.  Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

President Trump says he's raising global tariffs to 15% under a different authority after the Supreme Court blocked his emergency tariff power, forcing Congress to decide how closely they want to own the policy in a midterm election year.China is weighing what the court ruling actually changes on the ground for exporters and how it could reshape Trump's leverage ahead of his trip to Beijing in a few weeks.And a new NPR/PBS News/Marist poll finds most Americans say the state of the union is not strong, as President Trump heads into Tuesday night's address facing deep divides over the country's direction.Want more analysis of the most important news of the day, plus a little fun? Subscribe to the Up First newsletter.Today's episode of Up First was edited by Krishnadev Calamur, Vincent Ni, Dana Farrington, Mohamad ElBardicy, and HJ Mai.It was produced by Ziad Buchh and Nia Dumas.Our director is Christopher Thomas.We get engineering support from Neisha Heinis. Our technical director is Carleigh Strange.(0:00) Introduction(02:13) Trump's New Tariffs(05:55) China Reacts To Tariff Ruling(09:37) State Of The Union PollLearn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

The Supreme Court ruled 6 to 3 on Friday that President Donald Trump overstepped his authority when he invoked sweeping tariffs using a 1970s emergency statute. The decision was a major blow to Trump's tariff policy, which is basically his entire economic agenda. But for Trump, it means just one thing: more tariffs! So to learn what's next for our terrible tariff trajectory, we spoke with David J. Lynch. He's the global economics correspondent at The Washington Post and the author of The World's Worst Bet: How the Globalization Gamble Went Wrong (And What Would Make It Right).And in headlines, the US and Iran prepare for high-stakes talks later this week, Global Entry becomes a casualty of the partial government shutdown, and a check-in on the President's approval ratings before his State of the Union address.Show Notes: Check out David's book – https://a.co/d/08oXFjqU Call Congress – 202-224-3121 Subscribe to the What A Day Newsletter – https://tinyurl.com/3kk4nyz8 What A Day – YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/@whatadaypodcast Follow us on Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/crookedmedia/ For a transcript of this episode, please visit crooked.com/whataday

This is The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview.Part I (00:14 – 08:45)SCOTUS Takes Up the Tariffs Issue: In 6-3 Ruling, SCOTUS Rules Trump's Targeted Tariffs are UnconstitutionalJustices Strike Down Trump's Tariffs by The New York Times (Ann E. Marimow)Part II (08:45 – 10:16)President Trump's Angry Press Conference: The President Provided an Important Leadership Lesson After the SCOTUS Ruling – Don't Respond Out of AngerPart III (10:16 – 15:28)SCOTUS Made a Big Mistake: The Justices Should Have Addressed the Question of the Billions of Dollars That the U.S. Has Already Collected – What Now?Part IV (15:28 – 21:30)The Arrest of Former Prince Andrew: The Disgraced Prince of Britain Was Arrested For Sharing Government SecretsThe Former Prince Andrew Never Should Have Forwarded Those Emails by The Atlantic (Helen Lewis)Part V (21:30 – 25:12)We Need to Press for a Moral Reckoning with the Epstein Files: There is a Healthy Moral Outrage in Response to This StorySign up to receive The Briefing in your inbox every weekday morning.Follow Dr. Mohler:X | Instagram | Facebook | YouTubeFor more information on The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to sbts.edu.For more information on Boyce College, just go to BoyceCollege.com.To write Dr. Mohler or submit a question for The Mailbox, go here.

Legal Docket on the Supreme Court's decision against President Trump's emergency tariffs, Moneybeat on the economic effects of the Court's ruling, and History Book on the legacy of Johnny Cash. Plus, the Monday morning newsSupport The World and Everything in It today at wng.org/donateAdditional support comes from Planted Gap Year, where young adults combine Bible classes, hands-on farming, and outdoor adventure. More at plantedgapyear.orgFrom Ridge Haven Camp in North Carolina and Iowa. Summer Camp registration open now at ridgehaven.orgAnd from the Joshua Program at St. Dunstan's Academy in Virginia ... a gap year shaping young men ... through trades, farming, prayer ... stdunstansacademy.org

After a monumental ruling cancelling much of his tariff policies, President Trump vows to press forward with new import taxes. A man is killed after trespassing into Mar-a-Lago with a gun and a gas canister. And drug cartels are violently stamping their authority on Mexican towns after a kingpin was killed by police.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The Cover 3 crew is back to break down the latest news around the college football world. The boys discuss Joey Aguilar being denied eligibility for 2026 and break down how they think a college football super league would shape up. (00:00:00) - Intro  (00:02:15) - Joey Aguilar Denied Eligibility   (00:12:00) - Super League Crystal Ball  Cover 3 is available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify and wherever else you listen to podcasts.  Visit the betting arena on CBSSports.com for all the latest in sportsbook reviews and sportsbook promos for betting on college football. Watch Cover 3 on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/cover3 Follow our hosts on Twitter: @Chip_Patterson, @TomFornelli, @DannyKanell, @BudElliott3 For more college football coverage from CBS Sports, visit https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/ To hear more from the CBS Sports Podcast Network, visit https://www.cbssports.com/podcasts/ To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

On the DSR Daily for Monday, we break down President Trump ignoring the Supreme Court ruling on tariffs, Mexico killing a powerful cartel boss, Kash Patel's embarrassing celebration with US hockey players, and more.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Supreme Court's latest ruling on tariffs has thrown existing trade agreements into uncertainty. Our Head of Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore and Arunima Sinha, from the U.S and Global Economics teams break down the fallout.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research. Arunima Sinha: And I am Arunima Sinha on the U.S. and Global Economics teams. Ariana Salvatore: Today we'll be talking about the recent Supreme Court decision on tariffs, what it means for existing trade deals, and where trade policy is headed from here. It's Monday, February 23rd at 9am in New York. On Friday, the Supreme Court ruled that the president could not use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, to impose broad-based tariffs. The ruling didn't give a clear signal on what it could mean for potential refunds, but the Trump administration said it plans to replace the existing tariffs, which is something that we'd long expected – first leveraging Section 122 to impose 15 percent tariffs for 150 days. The president is simultaneously going to launch a few new Section 301 investigations to eventually replace those Section 122 tariffs, since they're only allowed to be in place temporarily. So Arunima, let's start by breaking down some of this tariff math. What does this mean for the headline and effective rate given where we are now versus before? Arunima Sinha: Before the decision, Ariana, we were at a headline tariff rate of about 13 percent. What this decision does is that with the move, especially to 15 percent, for other countries, we think that it takes about a percentage point off of the headline tariff rate. So, we would go to about 12 percent, and then we have another percentage point coming off just because of the shifts in trade patterns. And so instead of a headline tariff rate of about 13 percent, we think that we're going to be at a headline tariff of just about 11 percent. But that's really just related to the Section 122s. And as you noted, this is only going to apply for the next 150 days. So how should we be thinking about trade policy going forward? Ariana Salvatore: I think we should view the 15 percent as probably a likely ceiling for these rates in the medium term; in particular because this 150-day period expires some time around the summer, so even closer to the midterm elections. And as we've been saying politically speaking, it's unpopular to impose high levels of tariffs. We've also been saying that the president will continue to lean on trade policy as his real, only way to address the affordability issue for voters, which is something that we've actually seen on the policy side for the past few months with the imposition of exemptions, more trade framework agreements, et cetera.So really, I think this is just another way for him to continue leaning on this policy avenue. But in that vein, let's talk about specific pockets of relief. What are we thinking about some of their findings on a sector level? Arunima Sinha: So, let's tie this into the affordability aspect that you mentioned, Ariana, and specifically using the consumer goods sector. What we think is that with, just in the near-term period, with the Section 122s applying, for different consumer goods categories, we could see tariff rate differentials go down. So, they could be anywhere between 1 to 4 percentage points lower across different categories. But what we also think could happen is that once we get beyond the 150-day period, and there are no additional sector tariffs that go on. So, the 232s or the 301s, particularly for this particular sector, we could see some of the largest tariff relief that we're expecting to see. So, for example, apparel and accessories could see something like a 16 to 17 percentage point tariff drop. So that particular part I think is important. Just the upside risks to consumer goods. But that of course brings us to the question of bilateral trade deals and how they come into play. What do you think about that, Ariana? Ariana Salvatore: Yeah. So, I think when it comes to the bilateral deals, as we mentioned, there's some opportunities for relief depending on the sectors and the type of tariff exposure by country. As you mentioned, the consumer goods are a good example of this. So, in general, I think that trading partners will have little incentive to abandon the existing deals or framework agreements, just given that the president and the administration have messaged this idea of continuity. So, replacing the IEEPA tariffs with a more durable, legitimate, legal authority. But what's notable is that many of our trading partners are actually now facing potentially even lower levels than they were before. Even with the increase to 15 percent on the 122s from 10 percent over the weekend. In particular, many countries in Southeast Asia are actually now facing lower tariff levels since there were somewhere in the range of 20 or maybe even 25 percent before. But as I mentioned, the export composition of these countries matters a lot. So, Vietnam, for example, most exports are subject to the 20 percent tariff because of the IEEPA exposure. This ruling is more meaningful than somewhere like South Korea, where the exports are more exposed to the Section 232 tariffs. Based on the export composition – and that's a level, remember, that's not changing as a result of this ruling. So that's how we're trying to disaggregate the impact here. Now, my last question to you, Arunima, what does this all mean for the macro-outlook? As we mentioned, refunds weren't addressed in this ruling. We've sketched out a few different scenarios, most of which leaned toward a long lead time to eventually paying back the money – if and when the administration is actually, in fact, mandated to do that. But safe to say in the near term that we aren't going to see much action on that front. That probably means status quo. But why don't you put a finer point on what this means for the macroeconomic outlook? Arunima Sinha: That's absolutely right, Ariana, for the very near term and the second quarter, we don't think we're going to be very different from what our baseline expectation is. In the third quarter and in the last part of this year, there could be some upside risks, especially once the timeline on the 122s run out, they're not extended. And the different sector and country investigations take longer to implement. So, there could be some upside risks to demand. Consumer goods, for example. If there were to be some sort of an incremental tailwind to corporate margins that might lead to better labor demand from these companies. There could be additional goods disinflation; that would support just purchasing power. So, both of those things could be some incremental uplift to demand, relative to our baseline outlook. But then the last thing I think just to emphasize from our perspective, is that we do think that there is some sort of a near-term ceiling about how high effective tariff rates can go. We don't think that we're going to be going back to Liberation Day tariff rates in the near-term or even in the latter half of this year. Because if history is any guide, many of these investigations are going to take time and that full implementation may not actually occur before early 2027. Ariana Salvatore: Makes sense. Arunima, thanks for joining. Arunima Sinha: Thanks so much for having me.Ariana Salvatore: And thank you for listening. As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Rush Hour – Monday Morning Episode

Entering the final trading week of February, Carl Quintanilla, Jim Cramer and David Faber explored what's at stake for the markets, especially after Friday's Supreme Court ruling that struck down many of President Trump's reciprocal tariffs — and the president responding with plans to raise global tariffs by 15%. Shares of Novo Nordisk tumbled: Trial results show its next-generation obesity treatment was less effective than the Eli Lilly drug marketed as Zepbound and Mounjaro. Also in focus: The winter storm blasting the Northeast results in more than 10,000 flight cancellations, Alphabet upgraded, software stocks downgraded, AI roundup, Netflix-Warner latest from Ted Sarandos to Susan Rice and Trump. Squawk on the Street Disclaimer Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In this Crypto Town Hall episode, host Scott announces the show is shifting to Monday/Wednesday/Friday due to bandwidth and redundant discussions in the current down market. The panel explores Bitcoin's sideways grind near $66K amid extreme fear, macro uncertainty from the Supreme Court striking down Trump's tariffs (with his defiant response and looming legal battles), Iran tensions, and Bitcoin's risk-asset behavior rather than digital gold status. Guests debate the low odds of the Clarity Act passing, banks' pushback on stablecoin yield, stablecoins' inevitable disruption of finance, AI agents' future payments, and long-term optimism—viewing the drawdown as a buying opportunity while altcoins face ongoing pain.

Tonight, we're breaking down a major decision from the Supreme Court of the United States blocking Donald Trump's tariffs and declaring them illegal. This comes after Trump repeatedly insisted he had the authority to impose them on his own. The Court said otherwise. Trump is furious, but this ruling raises a bigger question about limits on executive power and whether the constitutional guardrails are still holding. Is this a turning point? A rare institutional check in a turbulent political era? Tonight we break down what the decision means for democracy, the economy, and what could come next.

In this episode of Freight Expectations, FreightWaves founder and CEO Craig Fuller and “The Armchair Attorney” Matthew Leffler dive into a historic day for the American supply chain. Following the Supreme Court's landmark ruling to overturn the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEPA) for revenue generation, the duo analyzes the immediate legal and economic fallout for the trucking and shipping industries.From the potential for a massive West Coast import surge to the tactical shift toward Section 122 tariffs, Craig and Matt break down how this ruling creates a new “Black Swan” catalyst for freight demand. They also tackle the rising tide of ICE enforcement at truck stops, the legal complexities of abandoned cargo, and why the industry is finally embracing new, authentic voices over traditional associations. Follow the Freight Expectations Podcast Other FreightWaves Shows Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Supreme Court has issued a major ruling limiting the president's emergency tariff powers, which is poised to reshape the global trade outlook. This decision introduces new predictability for businesses, though shippers must still monitor supply chain costs and ongoing legal uncertainties. In Mexico, the recent killing of a cartel leader has sparked violent retaliation that is jolting U.S.-Mexico freight corridors and rattling the critical Port of Manzanillo. Businesses relying on these routes are currently bracing for severe delays and heightened security risks for their commercial shipments. Looking ahead, analysts predict that ongoing capacity attrition will lead to a turning point for truckload carriers in 2026 as they begin to command stronger rates. Consequently, shippers should prepare for a challenging bid season with increased pricing pressure and significantly less negotiating leverage. Follow the FreightWaves NOW Podcast Other FreightWaves Shows Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On today's episode, Editor in Chief Sarah Wheeler talks with Lead Analyst Logan Mohtashami about what the Supreme Court's tariff ruling means for mortgage rates, and what other factors could bring rates down. Related to this episode: Trump's tariffs overturned by Supreme Court in 6-3 decision HousingWire | YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ More info about HousingWire To learn more about Trust & Will click here. The HousingWire Daily podcast brings the full picture of the most compelling stories in the housing market reported across HousingWire. Each morning, listen to editor in chief Sarah Wheeler talk to leading industry voices and get a deeper look behind the scenes of the top mortgage and real estate.

On the DSR Daily for Monday, we break down President Trump ignoring the Supreme Court ruling on tariffs, Mexico killing a powerful cartel boss, Kash Patel's embarrassing celebration with US hockey players, and more.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Aughie and Nia work through the ruling, concurrences, dissents, and implications of the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in the Trump Tariff cases.

According to Yale's Budget Lab: Before the IEEPA tariffs were struck down, the overall average effective tariff rate for imports was 19.6%. Immediately following the SCOTUS ruling, the rate fell to 9.1%. After the 10% across-the-board tariffs were imposed Friday night, the rate rose to the level of 13.0% for at least the next 150 days. Complicating matters, on Saturday President Trump announced the tariff rate would 15%. Adjusting for that adjustment, the net effective rate should be 14.95%. Therefore, the net effective impact in real-time is that approximately 24% of imposed tariffs were eliminated by Friday's Supreme Court ruling. 

Perhaps the biggest surprise from Friday's historic Supreme Court ruling striking down President Trump's “Liberation Day” tariffs, is that there really weren't any surprises.

On the DSR Daily for Monday, we break down President Trump ignoring the Supreme Court ruling on tariffs, Mexico killing a powerful cartel boss, Kash Patel's embarrassing celebration with US hockey players, and more.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Marc Cox sits down with Hans von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow at Advancing American Freedom, to analyze last Friday's six-to-three Supreme Court decision striking down the president's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act for tariffs. Hans explains the inconsistencies in the majority opinion, highlights the stronger arguments from the dissenters, and discusses the legal confusion over refunds for already-collected tariffs. The segment also previews the upcoming week's court decisions and touches on Marc's upcoming travel to DC for the State of the Union. Hashtags: #Tariffs #SupremeCourt #HansVonSpakovsky #TradeLaw #MarcCoxPodcast #StateOfTheUnion #USPolitics

Gregg Jarrett breaks down the recent Supreme Court decision striking down tariffs under the Emergency Powers Act, clarifying that Trump retains significant tariff authority through other longstanding trade statutes. He explains how misreporting has obscured the practical impact of the ruling, highlights the strategic discretion the president holds in international commerce, and outlines the complex refund process for affected importers. Jarrett also analyzes judicial behavior, noting patterns among liberal and Republican-appointed justices in high-profile decisions. Hashtags: #SupremeCourt #Tariffs #TradeLaw #GreggJarrett #EmergencyPowersAct #Trump #ImportRegulation #InternationalCommerce #LegalAnalysis

The show kicks off with Hour 1 navigating Marc Cox's tense D.C. travel amid a bomb cyclone, highlighting government shutdown absurdities, TSA chaos, and a fiery Soapbox on hypocrisy and patriotism, while Kim St. Onge exposes campus bias in “Kim on a Whim,” and AOC and Gavin Newsom draw scrutiny for tone-deaf political moves. Hour 2 celebrates the USA men's hockey gold medal win and Jack Hughes' standout performance before delving into Supreme Court tariff rulings with Hans von Spakovsky, market reactions with Nicole Murray, and lighter stories in “In Other News,” previewing AI and Dan Buck segments. Hour 3, “The Buck Stops Here with Dan Buck,” covers the deadly El Mencho cartel developments, Mexico's security chaos, and potential U.S. responses, offering context and warnings for Americans abroad. Hour 4 dives into Monday morning commentary, State of the Union prep, Mar-a-Lago shooting aftermath, Gavin Newsom's gaffes, local snow shovel job quirks, and sports highlights with Tom Ackerman, tying together legal, political, and cultural coverage. Hashtags: #MarcCoxShow #StateOfTheUnion #BombCyclone #USAHockey #Tariffs #Markets #DanBuck #ElMencho #MexicoCartels #MarALago #GavinNewsom #TomAckerman #PoliticalCommentary #Sports

On Friday's Mark Levin Show, the Supreme Court majority issued a very messy and problematic decision on tariffs. The fact is the majority agreed on an outcome but not so much on the reasoning for the outcome. It struck tariffs under a single statute, yet created chaos or, actually, left it to the president to decide if and/or how to treat the revenue those tariffs already created for the federal Treasury. The question is not who has the power to tax per se, but a more complicated question about where the separation of powers is. The majority, apparently, chose to duck the question and stick with the indirect tax characterization and focus on a single statute, which is outrageous. Also, Tucker Carlson is an indecent grifter with inexplicable ties to Qatar and an attraction to the Third Reich. He is gravely damaging the Republican Party, the midterm elections, and the Trump administration. Later, Jon Levine of the Washington Free Beacon calls in to explain that NYC Mayor Mamdani is fulfilling his campaign promises by staffing his administration with individuals from radical Islamist and far-left progressive circles, united by a shared hatred of the West and Jews. Mamdani is also pressuring Governor Hochul to impose a wealth tax by threatening massive property tax increases on roughly 3 million homeowners—effectively holding the entire city hostage in a "look what you made me do" tactic. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

After a year of build-up, the Supreme Court has ruled on President Trump's signature Liberation Day tariffs, and it's not the result the president wanted. So, what will happen next? John Carney describes how the president still have many options to impose tariffs and pursue his protectionist plan, and explains what will happen with the $300 billion in tariffs that have already been collected. Then, veteran reporter Mark Halperin dissects the political ramifications of the decision, the White House's strategic pivot to domestic issues, and the Administration's difficulty in converting its biggest wins into long-term polling strength. Watch every episode ad-free on members.charliekirk.com! Get new merch at charliekirkstore.com!Support the show: http://www.charliekirk.com/supportSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.