BREAKING: Supreme Court Justices Hate Each Other Like Poison

Above the Law

by Liz Dye

February 20, 2026

AI-Generated Deep Dive Summary

The Supreme Court delivered a scathing 170-page opinion striking down President Trump's "emergency" tariffs as illegal, reigniting tensions among its own ranks. The justices' sharp disagreements over the case revealed deep divisions within the court, with Chief Justice Roberts leading the majority in asserting that Congress, not the president, holds authority over tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). This decision also highlighted the justices' conflicting interpretations of the "major questions doctrine," which conservative justices have previously invoked to limit executive power but now appear willing to discard when a Republican is in office. The opinion took four months to finalize, allowing Justice Kavanaugh to pen a lengthy dissent defending Trump's authority, while Gorsuch and others criticized Barrett for suggesting Congress might delegate such powers implicitly. Roberts directly rebuked Kavanaugh for uncritically echoing the Trump administration's arguments, calling out both the government's briefs and the principal dissent as "echo[ing] point-for-point." Meanwhile, Justice Thomas went to great lengths to argue that the Founding Fathers would have supported presidential tariff authority, a claim met with skepticism. The ruling reaffirms Congress's constitutional role in setting tariffs and underscores the court's fractured approach to executive overreach. The justices' inability to agree on even minor details of their dissent revealed an institution more concerned with ideological posturing than judicial unity. This case not only sets a legal precedent but also raises questions about the court's credibility as a nonpartisan arbiter, given its blatant internal conflicts and selective application

Verticals

legalnews

Originally published on Above the Law on 2/20/2026