Justice Brett Kavanaugh said Friday that President Donald Trump could likely preserve most of his “Liberation Day” tariffs despite the Supreme Court’s decision striking them down.  Writing in dissent, Kavanaugh argued that while the Court rejected Trump’s reliance on the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA), other federal statutes could authorize most of the tariffs.   “Although I firmly disagree with the Court’s holding today, the decision might not substantially constrain a President’s ability to order tariffs going forward,” he wrote. “That is because numerous other federal statutes authorize the President to impose tariffs and might justify most (if not all) of the tariffs at issue in this case—albeit perhaps with a few additional procedural steps that IEEPA, as an emergency statute, does not require.” Kavanaugh pointed specifically to the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, the Trade Act of 1974, and the Tariff Act of 1930 as alternative statutory bases that could authorize the tariffs Trump sought to impose.  “IEEPA merely allows the President to impose tariffs somewhat more efficiently to deal with foreign threats during national emergencies,” he said. “In essence, the Court today concludes that the President checked the wrong statutory box by relying on IEEPA rather than another statute to impose these tariffs.” Kavanaugh’s position mirrors one previously articulated by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. In December, Bessent said multiple sections of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 could be used to “recreate the exact tariff structure” Trump imposed through IEEPA.  In his dissent, Kavanaugh argued that both history and law were on Trump’s side. Specifically, Kavanaugh pointed to the global tariffs imposed by former President Richard Nixon in 1971 as an example of a president imposing broad trade restrictions during an economic crisis. “Statutory text, history, and precedent demonstrate that the answer is clearly yes: Like quotas and embargoes, tariffs are a traditional and common tool to regulate importation,” he said.  Kavanaugh also argued that it would be illogical to allow the president to block all trade with China while barring him from imposing tariffs on Chinese imports.  “As [the plaintiffs] interpret the statute, the President could, for example, block all imports from China but cannot order even a $1 tariff on goods imported from China,” Kavanaugh said. “That approach does not make much sense.” Kavanaugh also warned that the ruling could raise questions about whether the government must issue refunds for tariffs already collected and potentially affect trade deals negotiated under those tariffs.  Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito joined Kavanaugh’s dissent. Thomas also wrote a separate opinion arguing that Congress had delegated tariff authority to the president.

'Kids are here to be used'

the lesson is clear

The settlement does not include any admission of guilt.

'Sickens me to my core'

What do you think?

The social media platform X has formally challenged the European Commission’s €120 million fine, arguing that the fine violates its due process under other European Union statutes. The challenge, if successful, may significantly alter the underlying EU law, the Digital Services Act, which critics have described as a weapon of “global censorship.” “X is being targeted by the European Commission because it is a free speech platform,” Adina Portaru, senior counsel for Europe at Alliance Defending Freedom International, said in a Friday statement announcing the appeal. “Social media platforms are today’s public square, and the DSA threatens speech in that public square.” Portaru, who represents X in court, called the fine “a crackdown on X by authorities who view a free speech platform as a serious threat to their total control of online narratives.” “By targeting X, they are targeting the free speech of individuals across the world who simply want to share ideas online free from censorship,” she added. X as a Free Speech Platform Tesla CEO Elon Musk purchased X, then known as Twitter, for $44 billion in October 2022. Musk said he bought the social media platform in part to restore the account of The Babylon Bee, a Christian satire site that had been permanently suspended for giving a “Man of the Year” award to former Biden administration official Dr. Rachel Levine, a man who identifies as a woman. When Musk took over, he brought in journalists who released The Twitter Files, which revealed the government’s pressuring Twitter to censor speech on the COVID-19 pandemic, transgender ideology, the Hunter Biden laptop story, and more. The EU Fine The European Commission fined X in December, marking the first non-compliance judgment against a social media company under the Digital Services Act. The fine is $141 million in U.S. dollars. “Deceiving users with blue checkmarks, obscuring information on ads and shutting out researchers have no place online in the EU. The DSA protects users,” Henna Virkkunen, the executive vice president for Tech Sovereignty, Security and Democracy at the European Commission, said in a statement.  Virkkunen claimed the law “restores trust in the online environment.” The Appeal Yet X’s appeal, filed Monday, raises serious concerns about the act. “This case turns on whether the enormous powers given to the European Commission under the DSA are compatible with the rule of law,” Portaru argued. “Under the DSA, the Commission is able to define the rules for so-called ‘content moderation,’ launch investigations, enforce them, and impose massive penalties for noncompliance, all with no meaningful checks and balances. The threat to free speech is severe.” Portaru cited a July 2025 report from the House Judiciary Committee Republicans, claiming that the Digital Services Act “compels global censorship and infringes on American free speech.” “The EU claims that the DSA applies only to Europe and that it targets only harmful or illegal content. Both of these claims are inaccurate,” the report states. “Nonpublic documents reveal that European regulators use the DSA: to target core political speech that is neither harmful nor illegal; and to pressure platforms, primarily American social media companies, to change their global content moderation policies in response to European demands.” The Republicans argue that “EU’s comprehensive digital censorship law … infringes on American online speech” by weaponizing terms like “disinformation” and “hate speech” to “censor their political opponents and criticism from their constituents, including ‘memes’ and other forms of satire.” The report reveals how social media companies drafted “voluntary” codes of conduct under threat from the DSA, and exposes a May 2025 DSA Workshop that the European Commission held with platforms behind closed doors. House Judiciary DSA Free SpeechDownload Democrats on the committee responded by claiming the Republican report included “distortions” to paint the act in a bad light. The Republican report cites multiple instances of European governments flagging conservative speech, and Democrats note that the social media platforms did not ultimately take down the content. The Democrat report does not highlight comparable examples of left-leaning speech facing potential censorship, however. X’s appeal argues that the fine violates its right to due process, and that it suggests a prosecutorial bias. If the appeal succeeds, it may lead the court to annul specific provisions in the law, particularly aspects that allow the European Commission to act as “regulator, prosecutor, and judge,” ADF International noted, “a role codified in the DSA itself, but which raises high concerns for due process and the rule of law.” “If the Commission’s concentration of power goes unchallenged, it will further cement a highly problematic standard for speech control across the EU and beyond,” Portaru said. The post ‘SEVERE’ THREAT TO FREE SPEECH: X Appeals European Commission Fine, Challenges Censorship Law appeared first on The Daily Signal.

NEW: SCOTUS Kills Trump Tariffs ... For Now

So that’s one less thing to worry about.