In a stunning development, the Supreme Court has overturned President Trump’s tariffs, sending ripples through the economic landscape. Join us as we break down the complexities of the ruling and what it means for the future of US trade policy. With expert insights and listener calls, we untangle the web of opinions and ideologies that shaped this landmark decision.
SPEAKER 05 :
We got breaking news. Supreme Court overturns the emergency tariffs.
SPEAKER 02 :
Keeping you informed and engaged now more than ever. This is Sekulow. We want to hear from you. Share and post your comments or call 1-800-684-3110. And now your host, Logan Sekula.
SPEAKER 05 :
Welcome to Sekula. We made it to another Friday. Here we are. I thought today maybe we’d be talking about Iran, but no. Supreme Court has ruled on President Trump’s tariff policy. We’ll get into that, what it looks like. Definitely not a win for President Trump, though it is a little unclear. All of the little nuances that come out of the Supreme Court. So we’re going to break a lot of that down coming up. Also, phone lines are open for you at 1-800-684-3110. I’m sure a lot of you have a lot to say about this tariff situation. So make sure to join us for the next hour. We’re going to be here again at 1-800. 684-3110 to have your voice heard on the air today. Later on in the show, we’re actually going a little different here. Remember I joined the segment I did for CCM Magazine by John Michael Finley, who is the star of I Can Only Imagine 2, which comes out in theaters today. So that’s going to be to wrap up the show. So something a little bit different to wrap up your week, but that’s going to be a lot later. So let’s cover the breaking news story right now out of the Supreme Court of the United States.
SPEAKER 03 :
Will, what’s up? That’s right. So we got the opinion this morning from the court, and the short version of what they found is this. This comes from the opinion from Chief Justice Roberts. Fulfilling our role, we hold that the IEEPA, which is International Emergency Economic Powers Act, does not authorize the president to impose tariffs. Therefore… overturning and upholding a appeals court judgment which blocked the use of tariffs under this statute but it’s a lot more complicated than that so top line is that they overturned the use of the tariffs under this emergency economic powers act but what does it mean in reality well there’s a lot of that that we’ll get ahead to but once again this is one of those opinions that we’ve spent All morning kind of looking at consulting with the attorneys at the ACLJ, getting a readout on. But just listen to this, because this is how convoluted sometimes these opinions come down. Chief Justice Roberts announced the judgment of the court and delivered the opinion of the court with respects to parts 1, 2A1, and 2B, in which Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Barrett, and Jackson joined, and an opinion with respect to parts 2, A2, and 3, in which Gorsuch, Barrett joined. Gorsuch and Barrett filed concurring opinions. Kagan filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring with the judgment. Sotomayor and Jackson joined. Jackson filed an opinion concurring in part, concurring with judgment. Justice Thomas filed dissenting opinion. Kavanaugh filed dissenting opinion, in which Thomas and Alito joined. So a lot of opinions out there, a lot of dissents out there. We’ll break it all down for you. But once again, sometimes these very nuanced questions of law come down in a very…
SPEAKER 05 :
convoluted way when it comes to supreme court based off ideologies the way that the law is read and we’ll get into all that to explain it so hopefully you can understand better what this actually means and what this does mean at least it gives you if you want to look for a positive spin it gives you a talking point to maybe some of your more liberal friends and neighbors when they go supreme court is overrun by trump supporters who only will do what president trump has to say well clearly not because they ruled how they felt The law should be the standard of the law should be. They did not vote on political lines. Now, again, you can agree and disagree, and I certainly see the comments. A lot of you clearly disagree with the Supreme Court of the United States in this moment. We are going to take your calls and comments at 1-800-684-3110. This is a great time to get on hold. We’re going to take a lot of calls today. Just me and Will today. And then later on, we have John Michael Finley joining us from I Can Only Imagine 2. But a packed show. Be a part of it. And I want you to support the work of the ACLJ at ACLJ.org if you can. You can sign those petitions that we have. You can get involved. You can check out the app. All those things are great. But they’re all available because people like you support financially. You know what I’m going to ask you to do today? It’s the end of the week. Become an ACLJ champion if you can. That’s someone that gives on a monthly basis, like a membership. It can be at any level. $5 and up, really. I’d just love to see the amount of champions go up this year. It’s kind of been the same, I’ll be honest, since we launched. Let’s get that number up higher. Become a new ACLJ champion today if you are, or up your donation if you can. We’ll be right back. Welcome back to Seculo. Phone calls are coming in right now. We’re certainly going to take some. We need to reset a little bit because a lot of you are just joining us right now. Maybe you haven’t seen the news this morning. The Supreme Court, as the title suggests, dealt a pretty massive blow to President Trump and the Trump administration, saying that their rules on tariffs, overall, this will be considered a loss. Now, there are some nuances to it. We do have to break it down. And we’re going to discuss other topics as well, including a potential preemptive strike, smaller strikes that could come from Iran. We have a little alien talk because we know that President Trump last night put out a statement saying we’re going to start declassifying a lot of the conversations surrounding UFOs, UAPs, all of those things. We’ll discuss that a little bit, why this is happening right now, why President Obama may be to blame. But we’ll discuss that. And then later on the show, as I said, we’re going to have John Michael Finley star in of I can only imagine two.
SPEAKER 03 :
So Will, let’s break this down again. That’s right. So I’m going to start with the opinion because really there’s a tale of two opinions here the way I see it. And one is the opinion of the court. That is the chief justice that authored that and has the majority in parts and on the judgment. So at the end of the day, sometimes you get a concurring opinion on some of it, but not all of it. So the real opinion of the court is only part of what The author wrote this. They also concur in the judgment. So at the end of the day, even the liberal members said, hey, we agree. Let’s overturn the tariffs, even if we don’t agree with all of your rationale for why. But what this all stems from is the president used the Emergency Powers Act, the international law. International Emergency Economic Powers Act, IEPA is what it’s called for short. And he declared early in his term a national emergency both on drug trafficking, and that’s how he handled a lot of the tariffs with the southern border and other countries that may enable trafficking in some ways, as well as the trade deficit emergency. And that is where the vast majority of the global tariffs landed. And this suit that was brought against the administration was from a company that was saying that they were being harmed by it. It’s Learning Resources Incorporated et al. There were other members that joined on with that. But they were the head of the plaintiffs here. And they were bringing it against the United States to try and overturn these, saying it’s harming their business and that it was beyond the president’s scope of power. And the court agreed with them to a degree, saying that the fact that this law, IEPA, has the words regulate and importation, does not give the authority to levy tariffs or duties. And I’ll read from page five. It says, based on the two words separated by 16 others in section 1702A11, whatever of IEPA regulate and import importation. The president asserts the independent power to impose tariffs on imports from any country of any product at any rate for any amount of time. Those words cannot bear such weight. So they are saying that this broad interpretation of IEPA does not grant the authority for the president to use what they describe as, and is correct, a tax. That the power to impose tariffs, this is also from the opinion, is very clearly a branch of the taxing power. They cite Gibbons v. Ogden, and they say a tariff, after all, is a tax levied on imported goods and services. And they continue to go on until they give their final judgment that we claim no special competence in matters of economics or foreign affairs. We claim only as we must the limited role assigned to us by Article 3 of the Constitution. Fulfilling that role, we hold IEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs. So all that to say… I’m breathing. The opinion… says that tariffs are a tax and that the Congress, in giving this law, IEPA, did not specifically grant the power to the president to use the taxing power through tariffs. And because of that, it is Congress’s role only to levy taxes. Therefore,
SPEAKER 05 :
because it doesn’t explicitly say it this broad interpretation will not stand and we overturn the tariffs we got a lot of calls coming in a lot of them are very similar i’ll be honest so we’re going to kind of try to sort through these now cliff’s an aclj champion so cliff gets to go first cliff’s calling from illinois cliff go ahead yeah hello um
SPEAKER 06 :
What I would say to this screener is, listen, if you take a tool out of the president, the executive branch, if he doesn’t have emergency powers to deal with unreasonable nations, whoever they may be, through terrorists, What would be his only decision to go after ones that are being unreasonable with us? Either you go to my wins or I’m going to bomb you to oblivion.
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, Cliff, that is part of the problem that Justice Kavanaugh saw with this ruling. And I want to bring that up as well because the court, once again, is also only talking about peacetime. This International Emergency Economic Powers Act is dealing with emergencies that the president declared, but not necessarily wartime tariffs, which gets so there are other laws that deal with that because this isn’t we are not at war with every country in the world. And these were global tariffs. But here is the concern, Cliff, that Justice Kavanaugh brought One is that he says in his dissent, the sole legal question here is whether under IEPA tariffs are means to quote, regulate importation. The statutory text, history and precedent demonstrate the answer is clearly yes. Like quotas and embargoes, tariffs are traditional and common tool to regulate importation. And he goes on to even draw the analogy of which the chief pushed back and did not agree with, but that… The predecessor to this law was trading with the Enemy Act. And in 1971, President Nixon imposed a 10% tariff on almost all foreign imports. So the President, using the predecessor to this law, Richard Nixon, did basically a blanket tariff of 10%. That was upheld. by the Supreme Court in the 70s. Now, this is a new law that kind of replaced that trading with the Enemy Act, which had different language, but kind of kept the same core language when it came to this. That’s where Justice Kavanaugh is saying, look, Congress didn’t specifically then ban the tariff portion of which was upheld by this court and then he also goes on to say this is going to create a mess by the way because there’s a bunch of other statutes that allow the president to impose tariffs right so he goes on to say and i think this is a fascinating statement is that he says Basically, in essence, the court today concludes that the president checked the wrong statutory box by relying on IEPA rather than another statute to impose tariffs. So the court didn’t even say the president can never impose tariffs. They just said maybe he filed it incorrectly. Exactly. That maybe using IEPA, which was a quicker way to do it than some of these other statutes, that they’re just saying under IEPA, no tariffs.
SPEAKER 05 :
Justice Kavanaugh had a big problem with that. You brought the wrong document to the DMV. Try to get that real ID and that’s what happens, okay? You know, it sometimes takes you a few times to go back. Well, don’t say that. That may make people think, oh, maybe the SAVE Act’s not a good idea. Yeah, I don’t know.
SPEAKER 03 :
Go back a few times.
SPEAKER 05 :
That’s true. There are a lot of comments coming in asking specifically about, okay, what does it mean for the tariffs right now? Like, as of today… Are they done? Do they not exist? Where are we now with those tariffs? Including, by the way, some of you who are in small business who have maybe had some concerns with the tariffs.
SPEAKER 03 :
That’s right. Maybe you’re looking at a little relief here. When it does come to it, and maybe we should wait for the next segment and we can take that call, but as of this, that the tariffs that were imposed under IEPA the lower court is upheld that blocked them. So therefore they are going to no longer be in effect. And in theory, that would be- But here’s another problem. Immediately? Here’s another problem. So the government’s no longer going to be collecting the tariffs, But they’ve collected billions of dollars of tariffs. One thing the court didn’t address and it is remanded back to a lower court. So maybe we will see something out of a lower court of how to address this. But the Supreme Court didn’t address how to handle the money that they’re now saying was collected improperly. Don’t give me any ideas. Which are billions of dollars. And even Kavanaugh points to that saying that this is going to be a situation because we don’t even say how it says the refund process is likely to be a mess. And how is that going to work?
SPEAKER 05 :
play out at this point we don’t know at this stage of the game president trump will be holding a press conference a little bit later so we’ll be covering that if there’s anything that comes on we’re also going to be discussing the potential for a limited strike to iran that may or may not be coming sooner than later we’ll discuss that coming up got a question or comment about that give me a call at 1-800-684-3110 of course the aclj always in big legal fights when you hear the supreme court i hope you think of us first we got two cases headed to the Supreme Court of the United States potentially. And this critical period, we’re going to need your support financially or even just your prayers. We appreciate that as well. But if you can give and become a champion today, it’s a recurring monthly donor. Let’s go to ACLJ.org. Those cases you know, the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of Calvary Chapel defending it against Governor Newsom’s attempt to crush it under $1.2 million in fines that were enacted during the pandemic. Still trying to cash in on those $1.2 million in fines. And in this week, Supreme Court just ordered CNN to respond to our petition. So, you know, that’s going to be a fun one as well. These are two that I know you are on our side. I want you to be a part of it. It’s the important work of the ACLJ. Go to ACLJ.org today. Become a champion if you can. Read more. Watch more. Get engaged. We’ll be right back on Sekulow. Welcome back to Seculo. Phone lines are open for you at 1-800-684-3110. I want to take a call actually right off the bat that we were discussing in the previous segment. Let’s go to Trevor, who’s calling on line one. Trevor, go ahead.
SPEAKER 10 :
Yes, I want to know, first of all, this Supreme Court really seems very off to me. And number two, with the way our economy is going,
SPEAKER 03 :
as a mom and pop business owner and i’m calling from texas by the way how would this affect us immediately especially getting good from other countries well here’s also part of the problem that uh justice kavanaugh brought up is that based off of the ruling the president has the power to regulate the trade he could shut off The entirety of foreign imports. Yeah, just say we’re no longer importing anything. Obviously that would destroy our economy. Here’s the direct quote. As they interpret the statute, meaning the majority, the president could, for example, block all imports from China, but cannot order even a $1 tariff on goods imported from China. So that goes back to the… point of it if you then put the president in a corner and say hey you can’t do the tariffs then this president is going to find ways to push back on the things that he sees are harming the economy such as the trade deficit so could he start blocking trade with countries yes he could and I think even under the way the supreme court ruled on this they would say Yeah, you’re allowed to do that under this law. You just aren’t allowed to use a tariff. Now, here is the question to the mom and pop shops as well. One, in the short term, it may not harm the businesses as much as it’s going to be a big mess for our government because of the refunds that the government may have to pay back to those that were the importers that paid the tax. Because once the goods come in, the person that brought them in pay the tax to the government on it. And then that tax, that tariff is normally baked into the price that then goes to the businesses. So a lot of mom and pop shops, unless they are directly importing and not getting from an American supplier, They’re already baked in at that price. It shouldn’t affect. What you could see, though, is that prices on goods in the United States that are imported will go down, which in turn, once again, could also bring demand back to mom and pop shops for certain items that maybe weren’t selling as good.
SPEAKER 05 :
I mean, look, let’s just be honest. There has been economic issues that have come with the tariffs. A lot of people like you who have called in or people that are supportive of President Trump have said, I’m willing to take on those. But it doesn’t mean the cost of goods haven’t gone up. It doesn’t mean importing things haven’t gone up. And we know this. Look, I’ll be honest. We’re currently in the process of redoing a studio space. And just camera gear, those kind of things have gone up, sometimes by thousands of dollars. So your budgets have just doubled and tripled. Sure, that may be a bit of a relief as we start rebuilding here, but I mean, we agree or disagree with the ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States.
SPEAKER 03 :
Right, and that’s why it is a complex question as well. And when you talk about tariffs, you talk about what… The government originally was funded in this country through tariffs. One of the very first taxes that Congress, as is their authority under the Constitution, one of the first tax bills they wrote was a tariff bill. And that is how they raised revenue for the government. That is not to say that where this lands, that doesn’t mean that that’s a good thing or a bad thing. It’s just it was how it was done. Then you had people like Woodrow Wilson and you had the income tax law that was then not supposed to be for the entire country, only the top 1% of earners. And it was a very small percentage. And then now we have a very progressive income tax system. What the president was doing here was using tools of the past, one, to keep people in check, but also to his own admission, was raising revenue for the government, which may have been some of the downfall in this case because the justices did see that. And they relied so heavily on the revenue portion, even if, as Justice Kavanaugh points out, that Listen, there’s precedent here that we could have allowed this. The president was very proud of the fact that he was raising revenue for the country through this means. And that is traditionally the congressional role. And what do we know about Chief Justice Roberts? If he can find a way to make it a tax, he’s going to make it a tax and find a way out of it. He loves a tax. Right.
SPEAKER 05 :
Let’s take another call about this. Look, I want to know from you. We have a second half hour of the show coming up. We have a lot of you watching right now. We have some other topics we wanted to hit today. What’s going on in Iran, of course. There’s some talk of alien talk and what that looks like with the UFOs and President Trump making a big statement last night. What does that look like? Is that a distraction? Is it real? We can break all that down. Or do you want us to stick on this topic? Let me know in the comments. what you’d like us to do.
SPEAKER 03 :
I do want to say one thing. We had someone that said, buy American, stop lying about your camera equipment. Good luck. Camera equipment is made in China, in Japan. If you want to see us on a broadcast, which we do every day, Those items are made not in America. Yes, I agree that the goal and what the president wants is more things to be manufactured here. But you cannot buy the types of cameras to produce this type of show. Canon is Japanese. Sony. I mean, anything you’re looking at is made not in America. Now, there may be American companies, but they’re also not making them here. Yeah. So yes, and if you are expanding, if you’re doing a studio. Everything is going to go up in price. It’s going to go up because those countries that manufacture them, even if you’re buying it through an American company, that’s getting hit with a tariff. So that is just a little bit of the way to correct that.
SPEAKER 05 :
And you know that, honestly. Exactly. Everyone, look at the computer you’re watching us on or the phone you’re watching us on. If you’re on YouTube right now, you likely are watching or interacting with us by a non-American made piece of technology. Yes, you have a Apple iPhone, which, of course, Apple is an American company. And it says designed in California. Designed in California, but where is it manufactured? You know, this is why you have to kind of look at a broader scope on this. And that’s why I said, look, there may be some economic relief on certain things, but that doesn’t necessarily mean you agree with the Supreme Court’s ruling. Phone lines are completely jammed. We are going to take your calls coming up at 1-800-684-3110. But I want to take this last minute of this half hour. One, if you don’t get the full hour of the show, some of you on local terrestrial radio, you only get a half hour. You can find us live every day. Post later on whenever. However you get your podcast, you can find us on ACLJ.org. However you get your podcast, YouTube, all that. We are live every day, 12 to 1 p.m. Eastern time. That’s available on ACLJ.org, on YouTube, on Rumble, on the Salem News Channel. A lot of different sources, SiriusXM, that carry us for the full live hour. We want you to be a part of that conversation. What’s great if you interact on YouTube or Rumble or Facebook is you can be a part of a chat, a group of people who are like-minded or sometimes not and have great conversations. I feel like the side conversations sometimes get more interesting than the show itself. Be a part of that community. You can find all of it at ACLJ.org. Because we do have a full second half hour coming up. Like I said, at the end of the show, we’re going to be joined. It’s a special I did for CCM Magazine with John Michael Finley from the new movie, I Can Only Imagine 2. It’ll be a nice way to wrap up your week here with us. So you want to stay tuned for that. But again, we only got 45 seconds in this second half hour. Find us later on or find us archived at ACLJ.org. But we’re live right now for another half hour. But if we do lose you here, you got other things you got to do. Become an ACLJ champion while you’re at it. That is someone that supports the work of the ACLJ monthly. You sign up like a membership. And again, you can do that at any level. We consider all of you monthly supporters ACLJ champions. Whether you’re given $5 a month or $500 a month. So do it today if you can. Create that great baseline for us. We really appreciate it. Gives us a great way to budget, plan out our year. So if you’re watching right now, you can scan the QR code or easily just go to aclj.org slash champions. We’ll be right back.
SPEAKER 02 :
Keeping you informed and engaged now more than ever. This is Sekulow. And now your host, Logan Sekulow.
SPEAKER 05 :
Second half hour of Sekulow. Here we are. We’re doing it. It’s a Friday. And of course, Supreme Court decided this morning, let’s make a ruling. Let’s make a lot of you angry. Let’s make some of you happy. And that is the Supreme Court said those Trump tariffs probably not going to pass the mustard. Is that what they say? Is that a thing? Cut the mustard. Pass the mustard. I don’t know. Is that something?
SPEAKER 03 :
Yes, you’re close, but you’ve fried my brain so much with how you just said that, I can’t even think of it right now.
SPEAKER 05 :
You know what I’m saying? Pass the baton. No. I don’t know what we’re doing here. Second half hour of the show. Let’s restart, Will. I think we should restart. Oh, we’re live. Oh, no, we can’t do that. Second half hour of the show. Right now, we’re talking about tariffs. And that’s right. President Trump, there’s nothing to laugh about, Will. No, I knew what your reference there was.
SPEAKER 03 :
It was really funny. Tariffs. Tariffs. have been ruled we’ve already lost it that’s right here’s what’s going on the supreme court this morning released an opinion muster that’s what i said muster it doesn’t pass muster yeah yeah colonel muster there you go that’s mustard uh this is the supreme court held in a 6-3 decision that the use of the international emergency economic powers act AIPA, as they say, does not authorize the president to impose tariffs. So what that practically means is all of the tariffs that the president put forward under this rationale, under these emergency powers, are no longer valid. That is what the Supreme Court held this morning in a 6-3 decision. We have actually some fascinating stuff to break down in the next segment about that. Let’s take a call.
SPEAKER 05 :
Let’s go to a call first. It’s what we call a hard reset. Ernest in Kentucky, line two. Watch it on the Salem News Channel where we’re live each and every day. Go ahead.
SPEAKER 07 :
Yes, it drives me crazy that Congress wants us to go to Congress. I live in Kentucky, and Rand Paul is mad because he says Donald Trump should come to Congress, but nobody in America believes Congress can get anything done. Why should we depend on Congress? How can we depend on Congress to do this when they won’t do anything?
SPEAKER 03 :
Congress, go ahead. Well, Ernest, the reason we should is the Constitution. We are a constitutional organization. We even at frustrating times, the Constitution is still what guides our government. And we don’t want to move away from that because as soon as you say we can’t rely on Congress, let’s do whatever we want. Then when you lose the next election, the people you don’t want to be making those same decisions will be doing it and they will go even further. So yes, we do need to rely on the Constitution. We do need to lean into this. Now, Justice Kavanaugh thinks that the interpretation here was the incorrect one of the statutes that Congress has passed. The majority of the court did not agree with that for a variety of reasons. The liberal members of the court did not necessarily agree on the same reasons. Can we break down the votes? Who voted for what? So once again, that’s what I did that was very convoluted at the beginning. But we had that, effectively, the Chief Justice, Justice Gorsuch, Justice Barrett, and Justice Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson were the six that made up the majority on the judgment. Their rationales were a little different for certain things. And I think we can explain a little bit of that in the next segment. But what you see is a very strange time where some of the more textualist, those that interpret the law based off of what the words say, which is the more conservative ideology, somehow were in the same camp because of the people that didn’t like the policy. What the Supreme Court ruled here wasn’t basically we think it’s a bad policy. They just ruled that we don’t think the statute allows for this. A bunch of lines just opened up.
SPEAKER 05 :
Maybe we just turned off a lot of people.
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, we laughed too much.
SPEAKER 05 :
Ernest called in. My favorite film, Ernest Goes to Congress.
SPEAKER 03 :
Different one.
SPEAKER 05 :
I thought you were going to say Ernest Goes to Kentucky. Well, Ernest from Kentucky Goes to Congress. Ernest was a good call. I liked him. I want to count how many times we said Congress in the last segment. That was a lot. That was like a 200 Congress count. 1-800-684-3110. Get on the air today. We’ve got one more segment. We’re going to take calls. In the last segment, we’re going to be joined by John Michael Finley Starr of I Can Only Imagine 2, which is in theaters today. Again. a friday everybody give us a call even if it’s a little off topic that’s okay 1-800-684-3110 Last chance to get on the air for the week. If you want to call in at 1-800-684-3110. Again, we are talking about tariffs. The Supreme Court ruled. You may have saw on the break there was a little alien talk. If you have a question about that, it’s fine. President Trump did last night on Truth Social said he has directed Secretary of War Pete Henseth and any other relevant agencies to start the process of identifying, declassifying, releasing the files related to extraterrestrial life. UAPs, UFOs, what that looks like. That was after President Obama made a statement essentially kind of confirming that he believes there are aliens but he didn’t see any and they weren’t being kept in Area 51 unless it’s an extra, you know, that’s a whole other conversation. Is this just a moment of President Trump kind of pouncing on a social media moment? Maybe so. It’s also one of the things that, you know, kind of has come with the president Trump presidency, which is a giving more transparency to a lot of the conversations that have been rather with around the Kennedy files or anything like that. Things that people have been curious about as, as Americans for decades. And even if it doesn’t give you what you want, maybe it will give you some answers with that though. We really still have to continue on talking about the breaking news of the day. Sports of the Supreme Court ruling. And Supreme Court got a little nuanced, as we said. It’s not necessarily as cut and dry as it maybe appeared. And they certainly wanted to make it feel that it was maybe a bit more bipartisan. And with that, there were some references within the opinion that Will pointed out that we think you’re going to find pretty interesting.
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, and once again, this is from the opinion written by the chief. And when they he lays out very much a textualist argument about the power to tax the power to impose, which once again, I know a lot of you are having deja vu from Obamacare. But even though he created a tax in that instance and upheld it, this was saying it’s a tax and so therefore I am overturning it. And goes back through the founders and the federalists and all of the different writings about why the unique power should lie within the Congress and originate in the House of Representatives. And then as he goes through this rationale, this is on page seven, talking about not reading too much into vague language to grant another branch of government’s power to the other branch, unless it’s explicitly said. And this is very interesting. And I think this is why, even if you disagree with the ruling, you need to think that the judicial philosophy of some of the justices that ruled in this way, you can’t just write off. Because a lot of times, if they’re using this same philosophy, they’re going to rule with you. And so I want to read this. It says, we have long expressed reluctance to reading into ambiguous statutory text, extraordinary delegations of Congress’s powers. And he cites West Virginia versus the EPA. In Biden versus Nebraska, for example, this was from 2023, we declined to read authorization to waive or modify statutory or regulatory provisions applicable to financial assistance programs as a delegation of power to cancel $430 billion in student loan debt. In West Virginia v. the EPA, we declined to read authorization to determine the best system for emissions reduction as a delegation of power to force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal. So the chief here is showing that we’re not making any claim about the policy. We here, me writing as the opinion of the court, is saying this is a textualist argument where, and I have done the same, this court has done the same when it came to Biden canceling $430 billion in student loan debt and The way that the EPA was trying to use a vague wording in a law to force America away from coal. Those are two things that are initiatives and rulings that conservatives were very happy with because the court saw that the executive branch was overstepping and relying on vague language. Now, I tend to agree more with the history and the way that Justice Kavanaugh laid it out. But I think that you can’t take this as an unserious anti-Trump move the way that the ideological reasoning came forward. And so I know that it’s… Whenever you don’t agree with the Supreme Court, it’s always easy to go after the members of the court. The left is the one that’s like, pack the court. We don’t need to be that on the right. Also, you can’t just write off individuals. Typically, if you have a more conservative judicial philosophy, you’re going to see more rulings you don’t agree with. If you’re a more liberal, living document philosophy… They find ways to always make the ruling fit the ideology. And in conservative judicial philosophy, a lot of times you end up seeing things you don’t agree with, things that you may have filed in opposition to. because that’s a more true conservative mindset of being able to look at the Constitution and read it. Once again, I really like the way in the dissent that Justice Kavanaugh laid this out. I wish that was the opinion of the court, and it certainly was written in a way that it could have been. When you read the way he lays out how President Nixon used very similar statutory language to impose a global 10% tariff, I think that he’s nailing it there, but that’s not the way that it came out this time.
SPEAKER 05 :
All right, I want to jump in because this will be our last chance for calls to get some. Let’s go to Patrick in Texas, ACLJ Champion. You’re up first. Patrick, go ahead. Patrick, you there? Good morning. Yes, sir.
SPEAKER 08 :
Can you hear me? Okay. Good morning, Jordan and Will. I am a customs broker representative. I do tariff codes. Okay. I’ve been doing this job for 14 years. And I saw all the imports that came in with zero duty for all these years. And it made me sick because everybody’s going offshore and bringing stuff back in at free. While these other countries are charging us absorbent Amounts of tariff.
SPEAKER 05 :
Right. And that, Patrick, was the conversation the whole time. President Trump said, look, it’s not fair. It’s not balanced at all. We are getting tariffed going in. But, of course, bringing stuff to America, they’re coming in with no issues and our companies are able to do this.
SPEAKER 03 :
That’s right. And to that point, Patrick, that was part of the trade deficit issue that President Trump issued an emergency over. Now, as Justice Kavanaugh points out, there’s other ways to impose these tariffs. It may take a little bit longer. I don’t think he’s done with this as an issue.
SPEAKER 05 :
Yep. All right. Thank you, Patrick, for calling in. Let’s move on. Let’s take another call. Let’s go to Kay, who’s calling in Indiana on line three. Kay, go ahead.
SPEAKER 09 :
Yes, I just listened to the previous caller from Kentucky. And so I think the question that I asked that Congress had already in the bylaws given the president or Congress had given a president power for tariffs. That’s what they. The Supreme Court was arguing on that ruling. Is that what this is about?
SPEAKER 03 :
Essentially, yes. It worked its way up. Here’s what Justice Kavanaugh even said. He said, since early in U.S. history, Congress has regularly authorized the president to impose tariffs on imports of foreign goods. That’s the truth. What this was about wasn’t whether a president under some laws could impose tariffs, it was under the specific law that he used. And what the court decided here was that using this International Emergency Economic Powers Act was an improper way to impose these tariffs. So it doesn’t mean the president can never again impose tariffs or that some that were imposed in a different way won’t stand, but it’s specifically ones that use that emergency power to be imposed.
SPEAKER 05 :
We’ll see what the fallout is probably over the next couple of days. So stay tuned to this show. We’ll make sure we’ll keep it covered on it. Charles and Nancy, unfortunately, we’re not able to get to your calls today. Appreciate you calling in. Thankfully, you don’t have to hold too long, but we’ll get to you next week if you want to call back in. I want to take a minute here as this is kind of the last pitch for us because in the next segment, we’re going to be joined by John Michael Finley from I Can Only Imagine 2. Last pitch to say become an ACLJ champion today. If you’re thinking about ways to support our work, it’s a great way to do it. You choose the level of what you’d like to do, whether it’s $5 and you can go higher than that. You can go up to as much as you want. Each month, you’ll be charged as a member. And what that does, create an amazing budget for us, baseline for us. We’re able to say, here’s what the ACLJ can do. We know we’ve got about 20,000 of you. that have joined to become ACLJ champions. I’ll be honest, that number has stayed pretty consistent and pretty stagnant for a long time. I appreciate the 20,000 people who do that, but let’s get that number higher. You know you can do it. Become a supporter if you can. Again, you can start as little as $5 a month at ACLJ.org and become a champion. Help us out as much as you can. That’s a great way to start. With that, in the next segment… Some of you don’t know. Another thing I do, my family, we do CCM Magazine, which has been around since the 70s, and we do great Christian media coverage. That is on our website, on ccmmagazine.com. I had an opportunity to sit down with John Michael Finley, star of I Can Only Imagine 2, which comes out in theaters today. This is a shorter version of it. This is like an eight-minute version of it. We went on for about 20. You can find the full thing on our website. But with that, we always want to show you some great entertainment options out there for your family, great faith-based entertainment options. This is a really good one. Go check it out. It’s a great little conversation. But more importantly, I want you to go check out I Can Only Imagine 2 this weekend in theaters. We’ll be right back with John Michael Finley. Today is release day for I Can Only Imagine 2. I have the pleasure of talking in studio with the star of the film, John Michael Finley, who plays Bart Millard again. I Can Only Imagine 2, out today. Take a look. A lot of attention, a lot of buzz is right now on I Can Only Imagine 2, which comes out this Friday, February 20th. We are excited. In studio with us today, John Michael Finley. You know him as Bart Millard once again. And it’s exciting. I saw this movie a number of, probably about two months ago now. I went to an early, before it was even finished, cut of the film. We’ve changed everything. Oh, no. Well, then I’m going to be completely, it’s a totally different story. It’s not what you’re expecting. Yeah. And it’s great. I think for a lot of us, though, because it’s been several years since the first I Can Only Imagine. I almost said I Can Imagine. I’m trying to avoid saying I Can Only Imagine. It’s got to be interesting for you, too. I’ve never thought of a rock biopic really getting a sequel. Was this ever in the cards?
SPEAKER 01 :
Did you think this was in the cards that you’d be coming back to this character? Absolutely not. No, we wrapped up the last one like so nicely, such a nice little bow we put on it. And it’s a true story. And so along with that, we’re like, you know, is there more story here? And I’m kind of the last one on the list that was notified that a sequel is happening. You know, you’re not going to inform the cast until you have to. Why, why? And, you know, of course, a few reservations about what would the script be like, what would the story be like? But man, as soon as I read the script, I was like, holy cow. They put together another incredible project. You know what I mean?
SPEAKER 05 :
And it really, I mean, the first film obviously was a lot about the father-son dynamic and this very unique situation that Bart was under. Now the roles are kind of reversed and we’re now dealing with another father-son situation with you and your child. At this stage of your life personally, I’m just curious, and where you are in your career, and now that we’re in multiple years since the original, does that version of this story connect with you now? It’s spooky, man.
SPEAKER 01 :
It’s spooky. You know, the first film, I was not married, no kids. young man in my mid-20s, never done a movie before, and I’m just hanging on to a roller coaster. And it was amazing, and it was life-changing, but, you know, only in hindsight do I really have, you know, much clarity. And this time around, I’m a father, I’m a husband, I’ve had some life experience. It’s been about 10 years, you know. It’ll be 10 years this fall when we started filming the first one. And… For me, it may as well have been 30 years. Man, all of us came out of the pandemic. I lost my mom pre-pandemic. And so a lot of big life changes for me, but also as an artist, more experience. Imagine was my first film, and thankfully after that, I was able to do some other projects, some more Broadway shows. And coming back for this one now as the father and the husband and the middle-aged guy dealing with what… It was… It was breathtaking, but therapeutic at the same time.
SPEAKER 05 :
Yeah, because in this chapter of the story, Bart’s obviously nailed Mercy Me as successful, everything is great, huge tours. But you are right that it deals with, as a dad, A lot, though, maybe it’s to the extreme in some instances because of the medical situations that him and his son were dealing with. A lot of it is the normal dad stuff, which is you’re now dealing with the fact that you have to remind your kids to brush their teeth, tie their shoes, and take their medicine. Which is its own struggle. Which is its own struggle, and I’m watching it going, oh, man. And in some ways… Bart’s kind of the antagonist in this movie. I mean, that’s where the story has flipped, which is you definitely come out of this one with a different side of him. And throughout the movie, I related to him, but I also could see the negative in it.
SPEAKER 04 :
Well, I’ll tell you what.
SPEAKER 01 :
Not the bad guy, but the villain in the movie in some ways. Just going to say the same thing. And if I have to be the bad cop, so be it. Like… I’m sure we’re going to talk about it eventually, but bringing Milo Ventimiglia in to let Tim Timmons be the light in the darkness of this story, let me play the bad cop. And as an actor with a ferocious appetite… You know what I mean? So it was such a fun challenge to really step now into this much heavier, much darker world. And there were a few edits of the film, from my understanding, that were too heavy. I’ve heard that as well. And they even had to trim it back a little bit. And that’s not me patting myself on the back. That’s me saying, let’s make something real. Let’s tell a true story. And it’s so real and vulnerable and raw that people are like, crap. I don’t know how, just what you said, I don’t know how I feel about that. I connected with it, but I don’t know if I connected with it in a positive way, you know?
SPEAKER 05 :
Yeah, I think at the screening I went to, Bart came out in the end, he was like, yeah, I’m sorry, I was such a jerk. You know, sorry about that, because you are kind of a very beloved character. You’re playing a beloved character, and a beloved man, you know, maybe one of the uh, silliest, sweetest guys you meet in Christian music is someone who is willing to be the butt of the joke, is willing to be… A prankster.
SPEAKER 01 :
A prankster.
SPEAKER 05 :
And then to watch this story unfold after we met you 10 years ago as this character, and then to see where he’s ended up, I mean, I guess there are moments in cinema where this has happened, where, you know, where we ended with Luke Skywalker in Return of the Jedi, where we picked up with him 30 years later, it can be jarring. And you’re like, oh, this isn’t necessarily the hero to the story. Obviously, we get to the good parts. It’s not like this movie is just filled with sadness. But that was such a unique turn for, especially for a movie that’s in the faith category, to be like, here’s your… It was risky.
SPEAKER 01 :
Here’s your hero. Let’s turn it all upside down. But that’s how I felt from day one. I mean, I remember having a Zoom call with the two co-directors, and I said, um… our audience will follow us. You know what I mean? Like, I think we have a long leash, not just because the first film was successful, but like people are gonna be rearing for the sequel. You know what I mean? And, but that’s, that’s cause I had already read the script and I knew that it was a quality story, but you know, I think we can take some risks and I think we can be vulnerable and be raw and be real. And I think it might be jarring at times, but I think people will so appreciate it and connect with it because it feels real.
SPEAKER 05 :
It does feel real. And, like I said, the tension that’s there between the father and son relationship, and even the band and Bart, the whole thing, again, very… Where’s Fun Bart?
SPEAKER 01 :
What happened to Fun Bart? What happened to him? But that’s true for a lot of us. How many dads, I mean, how many of us wear a mask? It’s not that Bart’s not actually a fun guy. That is real Bart. They’re both real Bart. But don’t we all have this Jekyll and Hyde, this yin and yang that… And I think part of Bart would be Tim Timmons if he hadn’t suffered through some of the trauma that he’s suffered through. Maybe Bart would be the light in the darkness, but he’s just carrying all this emotional weight that he can’t always be that for everyone.
SPEAKER 05 :
And a lot of us, like I said, go through… a lot of unseen, like I said, trauma that can change the way you parent everything. How do you feel that other dads, or what do you want other dads to kind of walk away from this movie feeling? Like, I did feel like, okay, I got to get some of my priorities in order. Like, there were definitely moments of, like, clarity coming from it. But also, again, it’s not like all doom and gloom. There is hope for the dads in the room.
SPEAKER 01 :
Oh, for sure. Yeah. Um, I think this is a big one for the dads. I mean, you know how many bikers and truckers and gang members after the first film came out and said… I got so emotional during that film because my relationship with my father, I called my dad, before I even left the theater, I called my dad, or my dad’s no longer with us. And this movie affected me. Guys that were probably dragged to the cinema by their wives or their children. And we’ve had similar responses testing this film. There was a situation where someone stood up and kind of said, you know, I don’t know why Bart’s acting like this and this and this and this. And then another guy stood up and said, I don’t want to argue and disagree. but I feel exactly that way. And another gentleman stood up and said, I feel exactly, and 10 gentlemen stood up and said, we’re not arguing with you, but like, I felt exactly that way.
SPEAKER 05 :
I think that’s… You can’t really argue with that. Yeah. And I felt that way when we were in the screening. It was a really interesting group of people. But all of us, there’s a lot of tears flowing. There’s a lot of people getting very emotional over this movie.
SPEAKER 01 :
How many movies are encouraging middle-aged men? Right, right. Not a whole lot. But I’m so proud that we’re covering so much ground that in many ways, I’m a preacher’s kid from the Bible Belt that is sometimes taboo. that we don’t feel comfortable talking about it. And I’m so glad that we at least attempted to have the courage to be raw and vulnerable and tell those stories.
SPEAKER 05 :
Yeah, and I hope everyone goes see it. I can only imagine two is this weekend in theaters. And John, it’s been a pleasure to just chat with you. And I look forward to what’s next. All right, that’s going to do it for today’s show. I appreciate everybody tuning in. Go to aclj.org for more information. Again, thanks to John Michael Finley, all our guests, all our callers. We’ll talk to you on Monday.
