President Donald Trump is pictured giving a speech about the economy Thursday at the Coosa Steel Corporation factory in Rome, Georgia. (Saul Loeb – AFP / Getty Images)
By Bryan Chai February 21, 2026 at 5:30am
When the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 Friday that President Donald Trump cannot use the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act to unilaterally levy tariffs, critics of this administration were quick to celebrate.
But while most leftists are taking that victory lap, not every member of that side is so enthused.
In fact, on far-left network MS NOW, its senior legal reporter, Lisa Rubin, seemed to admit defeat, acknowledging that this sticky tariff issue was far, far from over.
🚨 In a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court STRIKES DOWN President Trump’s tariffs, holding that the President CANNOT use the IEEPA and Congress alone has the taxing power.
Roberts delivered the opinion/judgment of the Court. Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh dissent. pic.twitter.com/6dlL2OJruZ
— SCOTUS Wire (@scotus_wire) February 20, 2026
Rubin appeared alongside MS NOW anchor Ana Cabrera shortly after the SCOTUS announcement, and the two dove into the litany of questions that naturally follow such a major ruling.
“In the meantime, Lisa, there were a lot of businesses who were waiting for this, a lot of consumers, and of course a lot of foreign governments who were wondering what this is going to end up being — because now that the Supreme Court has ruled against the use of that power to exert these tariffs or invoke them, where’s all the money that has been collected going to go?” Cabrera asked, according to Mediaite.
She added, “Does it have to be refunded?”
Rubin’s response was telling, first admitting that this whole ordeal was “messy.”
“Those are good and valid questions to ask, and as messy as this opinion is, it gets even messier with respect to the pragmatics of what you just asked, right? How does the money get back?” Rubin said.
But then came a dose of reality.
Rubin explained: “But also, the White House has essentially said, if we lose in the Supreme Court, we have lots of other mechanisms that we can use to impose the same or similar tariffs.
“And so I’m really looking this morning to see how the White House deals with this backlash and what they say their next move is, because they may claim that there needs to be no interruption in these tariffs — that even though there was no statutory or constitutional justification here for using IEEPA to impose these tariffs, they can just essentially draw on another authority and continue business as usual with respect to the imposition of tariffs here in this country.”
Other outlets have echoed similar sentiments.
Middle Eastern news outlet Al Jazeera, for instance, reported that Trump still has multiple avenues for keeping his tariffs going unimpeded.
“One option is Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which allows tariffs on national security grounds,” the outlet said. “This authority was used during Trump’s first term to impose tariffs on steel and aluminium imports.”
Al Jazeera added: “Another is Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which permits the US to impose tariffs in response to unfair trade practices by other countries.”
The outlet also noted that Trump could pursue more targeted and specific taxation, as opposed to broader tariffs.
Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.