Happy Monday! Although we here at SCOTUSblog are still recovering from a busy Friday analyzing the tariffs ruling, we have to turn our attention to the February argument session. It begins today with oral arguments on confiscations by the Cuban government. Today is also the debut of SCOTUStoday’s new look. We’re bringing you the same great content in what we believe is a more engaging format. As always, please send any feedback to scotusblog@thedispatch.com. At the Court Friday morning, the court released its opinion in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, holding that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the president to impose tariffs. For more on the ruling, see, well, the rest of this newsletter. Also on Friday, the justices met in a private conference to discuss cases and vote on petitions for review. Orders from that conference are expected this morning at 9:30 a.m. EST. Amy will be writing on any notable decisions by the justices. This morning, the court will hear arguments in two cases brought by U.S. businesses that are seeking to recover losses they suffered when Cuba’s communist government came to power and seized their assets more than 65 years ago. The cases are Havana Docks Corporation v. Royal Caribbean Cruises and Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación Cimex, S.A. The court has indicated that it may announce opinions tomorrow and Wednesday. We will be live blogging both days beginning at 9:30 a.m. EST. Tomorrow, the court will also hear argument in Enbridge Energy, LP v. Nessel, on whether district courts are authorized to extend the 30-day deadline for a defendant to move to remove a case to federal court. Morning Reads The Moment Trump Found Out the Supreme Court Killed His Tariffs Ken Thomas and Josh Dawsey, The Wall Street Journal President Donald Trump was in “a closed-door White House meeting with governors” when the Supreme Court handed down its ruling on tariffs. One of Trump’s trade advisers alerted the president by handing him a note. “So it’s a loss, then?” Trump responded, according to meeting participants who spoke with The Wall Street Journal. “Trump told the governors sitting before him in the State Dining Room that he looked calm but was seething inside, calling the ruling a disgrace, the people said.” Trump then “cut short a question-and-answer session, leaving the meeting early so he could work on his response to the ruling.” 'Everyone here is irate': White House scrambles after tariff loss as Trump unloads on Supreme Court Jonathan Allen, Matt Dixon, Katherine Doyle, and Allan Smith, NBC News About three hours after the court announced its decision, Trump held a news conference and spoke about the ruling and his plan to reimpose tariffs. “The good news is that there are methods, practices, statutes and authorities, as recognized by the entire court in this terrible decision, and also as recognized by Congress” that are “available to me as president of the United States,” Trump said, according to NBC News. “Specifically, Trump said that he would, in the next few days, put in place a temporary 10% global tariff on all imports under” a separate law, Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. “If Congress does not act to extend that tariff within 150 days of its implementation, it expires.” Trump repeatedly “praised Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, who voted in the minority to leave his tariffs in place.” Trump says he will raise global tariffs to 15% after Supreme Court decision Lucia I Suarez Sang and Joe Walsh, CBS News On Saturday, the president said “that he is going to raise his global tariff to 15%,” not 10%, as he’d announced on Friday, according to CBS News. “Mr. Trump said in a social media post that he was making the decision ‘Based on a thorough, detailed, and complete review of the ridiculous, poorly written, and extraordinarily anti-American decision on Tariffs issued yesterday.’” In a different post, he again praised Kavanaugh, Thomas, and Alito. “There is no doubt in anyone’s mind that they want to, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!,” Trump wrote. Trump has other tariff options after Supreme Court strikes down his worldwide import taxes Paul Wiseman, Associated Press Friday’s ruling is not expected to end the debate over the president’s authority to impose tariffs. Instead, it will shift the attention to other laws, as the Trump administration uses statutes such as Section 122 to attempt to rebuild the system of tariffs that the court struck down. However, many of these statutes put restrictions on the president’s tariff power, by, for example, requiring an investigation and public hearing on the potential tariff and imposing time limits, according to the Associated Press. Under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, after an investigation and potential hearing by the administration’s trade representative, the president can impose tariffs against countries the U.S. “accuses of engaging in ‘unjustifiable,’ ‘unreasonable’ or ‘discriminatory’ trade practices,” which “expire after four years but can be extended.” Under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, the president can “impose tariffs on imports that he deems a threat to national security,” after an investigation by the U.S. Commerce Department. Hoping for a tariff refund? Trump officials say they are waiting for lower courts to provide instructions. ‘They created the situation’ Jason Ma, Fortune During a Sunday appearance on Fox News, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer addressed the ruling and the administration’s plan for tariff refunds. “[I]t’s a matter for the courts,” Greer said, according to Fortune. “They created the situation, and we’ll follow whatever they say to do.” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent also deferred to the lower courts during an interview Sunday on CNN. “I’m not going to get out ahead of the court,” Bessent said. “We will follow the court’s direction. But as I said that could be weeks or months away.” Fortune noted that “[m]ore than $130 billion in revenue collected under the IEEPA tariffs is at stake.” Is This the Most Important Supreme Court Case of the Century? David French, The New York Times In a column on Friday’s ruling for The New York Times, David French explained why he believes “it may prove to be the most important Supreme Court decision this century.” He contended that “it may help restore faith in how courts make decisions” by showing that the Supreme Court is willing to stand up to the Trump administration and also may reduce the sort of “presidential power grab[s]” that have become a common part of American politics by telling the president not to “us[e] broad and vague language in federal statutes as a pretext for engaging in lawmaking in place of Congress.” On Site Opinion Analysis Supreme Court strikes down tariffs In a major ruling on presidential power, the Supreme Court struck down the sweeping tariffs that President Donald Trump imposed in a series of executive orders by a vote of 6-3. Case Preview Justices to consider constitutionality of tax foreclosure sales On Wednesday, the court will hear argument in Pung v. Isabella County, which asks the court to consider the constitutionality of the longstanding practice of tax foreclosures sales. Ronald Mann described it as "one of those cases that would be tremendously important if it came out one way and will probably sink without a trace if it comes out the other." Contributor Corner A breakdown of the court’s tariff decision In his Empirical SCOTUS column, Adam Feldman broke down the Supreme Court’s tariffs ruling, examining the principal opinion and the six concurrences and dissents, and assessing whether the predictions he made earlier this month about how the court would rule came true. View from the Court Watching tariffs come down In his View from the Court column, Mark Walsh described what he saw and heard in the courtroom on Friday as the Supreme Court announced its tariffs ruling. A Closer Look: Coverage of the Tariffs Ruling Friday’s ruling on tariffs prompted a tidal wave of coverage, including columns on the significance of the justices’ decision, explainers on how Trump could reimpose his tariffs, and roundups of reactions from lawmakers and business owners. Most, if not all, news outlets posted a story aimed at summarizing the decision, and, as we often do after a notable event at the court, we put together an overview of those headlines that we think best captured the public discourse. These ranged from the straightforward to the explanatory to the more editorial. The New York Times: Justices Strike Down Trump’s Tariffs Associated Press: Supreme Court strikes down Trump’s sweeping tariffs, sparking fierce pushback and vow of new levies NBC News: Supreme Court strikes down most of Trump’s tariffs in a major blow to the president Courthouse News Service: Supreme Court strikes down Trump’s one-man tariff war The Guardian: Trump illegally used executive power to impose global tariffs, supreme court rules Fox News: Supreme Court blocks Trump tariffs in major test of executive branch powers The Washington Examiner: Supreme Court strikes down Trump’s sweeping ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs Vox: Why a Republican Supreme Court struck down Trump’s tariffs The Atlantic: How the Supreme Court Spared America There was a bit more variety in the headlines attached to follow-up stories about how Trump reacted (likely because the president gave reporters and editors some colorful quotes to choose from). Politico: Trump attacks Supreme Court justices after he is handed a major tariff loss The Washington Times: Trump rips justices’ tariffs ruling, says he’ll use other authorities to impose 10% global tariff NBC News: Trump calls Supreme Court justices ‘disloyal to the Constitution’ over tariffs ruling Axios: Trump “absolutely ashamed” of SCOTUS for tariffs ruling CBS News: Trump lashes out at his own Supreme Court picks over tariff ruling: “An embarrassment to their families” SCOTUS Quote “For those who think it important for the Nation to impose more tariffs, I understand that today’s decision will be disappointing. All I can offer them is that most major decisions affecting the rights and responsibilities of the American people (including the duty to pay taxes and tariffs) are funneled through the legislative process for a reason.” — Justice Neil Gorsuch in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump The post SCOTUStoday for Monday, February 23 appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Pellets of plutonium, 1945 (US Department of Energy) 85 Years Ago—Feb. 23, 1941: Dr. Glenn Seaborg & Dr. Arthur Wahl chemically identify new element of plutonium at University of California, Berkeley; the discovery is kept secret until after the war. Greece agrees to allow British soldiers to help defend Greece from the Italians.The post Today in World War II History—February 23, 1941 first appeared on Sarah Sundin.

"I’m afraid the issue is not my understanding, but rather that perhaps you’ve grown accustomed to a president who never thinks before he speaks." The post AOC Tries to Stop the Bleeding After Germany Gaffe, Faceplants in Late-Night Rant first appeared on Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion.

The FBI director is partying and swilling beer. FBI Director Kash Patel in Action 3 million pages of evidence of a massive child sex trafficking ring and this is what the FBI director is doing right now. https://t.co/dcUq8zsXUy — Sean Casten (@SeanCasten) February 23, 2026 About that Jet Setting Strictly Business Caught in Lie Patel …

A Nevada lawsuit trickling toward trial could determine how the nation's most arid state balances the legal rights of upstream landowners to divert water from rivers for agricultural irrigation with the impacts those withdrawals have on downstream ecologies and economies. Water rights exceed water supply across much of the western United States. With many watersheds failing to deliver enough water for local needs, the suit is being watched by attorneys, state water managers, and federal agencies. It could potentially set a precedent in revising how states across the West regulate access to water.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio will travel to the Caribbean country of St. Kitts and Nevis this week to reassert the Trump administration's interests in the Western Hemisphere just a month after the U.S. military operation that removed then-Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro from power. With the eyes of much of the world on the U.S military buildup in the Middle East and President Donald Trump's threats to attack Iran, Rubio will make a one-day visit to St. Kitts on Wednesday to participate in a summit of leaders from the Caribbean Community, the State Department said.

The 21-year-old man who was shot and killed after entering Mar-a-Lago with a weapon was a recent high school graduate who started an artwork company last year that specialized in handmade drawings of golf courses. The man, Austin Tucker Martin, of Cameron, N.C., was confronted by the Secret Service and officers from the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office inside the north gate of Mar-a-Lago, President Trump's residence and private club in Palm Beach, Fla. Mr. Martin was carrying what appeared to be a shotgun and a fuel canister. Officers told him to drop the items, but he put down only the canister and was shot and killed after raising the shotgun to a "shooting position," the authorities said.