SEKULOW

Guest (Male): We got breaking news: Supreme Court overturns the emergency tariffs. 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 Sekulow.

Logan Sekulow: Welcome to Sekulow. We made it to another Friday. Here we are. 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 and 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 to be going a little different here. We're going to be joined by a segment I did for CCM Magazine with John Michael Finley, who is the star of I Can Only Imagine 2, which comes out in theaters today. That's going to wrap up the show. 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. Will, what's up?

Will: That's right. So we got the opinion this morning from the court. 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 the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, does not authorize the President to impose tariffs." Therefore, overturning and upholding an 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 read-out 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 one, 2A-1, and 2B, in which Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Barrett, and Jackson joined, and an opinion with respect to parts two, A-2, and three, 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 the judgment. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion. Kavanaugh filed a 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 convoluted way when it comes to the Supreme Court based off of 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.

Logan Sekulow: 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 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.

Then later on, we'll 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.

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.

Jay Sekulow: The challenges facing Americans are substantial. At a time when our values, our freedoms, and our constitutional rights are under attack, it's more important than ever to stand with the American Center for Law and Justice. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines, protecting your freedoms, defending your rights in courts, in Congress, and in the public arena. And we have an exceptional track record of success.

But here's the bottom line: we could not do our work without your support. We remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms. That remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org where you can learn more about our life-changing work. Become a member today. ACLJ.org.

Guest (Male): Welcome to the all-new ACLJ app. Expert analysis and insight Big Tech can't censor. Customize your news and get real-time alerts on the issues you care about. Advocacy is now at your fingertips. Take action, make a difference, support the causes you care about with just one tap. Be the first to know: breaking news alerts sent straight to your inbox. Everything you need, all in one place. Stay informed, stay empowered. Download today.

Logan Sekulow: We are so excited to announce the ACLJ's brand-new app, completely redesigned to provide you with the best tools available to partner with us at the ACLJ. You can watch the daily Sekulow program, sign the petitions, customize your ACLJ membership experience, donate with the click of a button, and receive up-to-the-minute critical updates that the mainstream media can't censor. Just scan the QR code on your screen or go to your phone's App Store, search ACLJ, and click Install. It's that simple.

Welcome back to Sekulow. 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. 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 strike, that could come from Iran. We got a little alien talk because we know that President Trump last night put out a statement saying that we're going to start declassifying a lot of the conversation 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 in the show, as I said, we're going to have John Michael Finley, star of I Can Only Imagine 2. So Will, let's break this down again.

Will: 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, in 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 Emergency Economic Powers Act, IEEPA 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, IEEPA, 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 1702(a)(1) whatever of IEEPA, 'regulate' and '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 IEEPA 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 III of the Constitution. Fulfilling that role, we hold IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs."

So all that to say, the opinion says that tariffs are a tax and that the Congress, when in giving this law IEEPA, did not specifically grant the power to the President to use the taxing power through tariffs. And because it doesn't explicitly say it, this broad interpretation will not stand and we overturn the tariffs.

Logan Sekulow: 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.

Cliff: Yeah, hello. What I had said to the screener is, listen, if you take a tool out of the President's, the executive branch's, if he doesn't have emergency powers to deal with unreasonable nations, whoever they may be, through tariffs, 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.

Will: 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 is why it gets so heavy, because 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 IEEPA tariffs are means to '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." 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 IEEPA 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.

Logan Sekulow: Exactly. That maybe using IEEPA, which was a quicker way to do it than some of these other statutes, that they're just saying under IEEPA, no tariffs. Justice Kavanaugh had a big problem with that. He brought the wrong document to the DMV, tried to get that REAL ID, and that's what happens. Sometimes it 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 if you have to go back a few times." I don't know.

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?

Will: That's right. And I think we can—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 IEEPA are—the lower court is upheld that blocked them. So therefore, they are going to no longer be in effect. But here's another problem. 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, 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 play out at this point? We don't know at this stage of the game.

Logan Sekulow: President Trump will be holding a press conference a little bit later, so we'll be covering that if there is 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. I'm going to ask you to go to ACLJ.org. Those cases, you know: US 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, the 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 and 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 Sekulow. Phone lines are open for you at 1-800-684-3110. I wanted to take a call actually right off the bat that we were discussing in the previous segment. Let's go to Trevor, who is calling on line one. Trevor, go ahead.

Trevor: Yeah, I want to know first of all, this Supreme Court ruling seems very off to me. And number two, with the way our economy is going, as a mom-and-pop business owner, and I'm calling from Texas by the way, how would this affect us immediately, especially getting goods from other countries?

Will: Well, here's also part of the problem that 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. 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.

Logan Sekulow: 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 have supportive of President Trump have said, "I'm willing to take on those," but doesn't mean the cost of goods haven't gone up, 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 equipment, 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 that doesn't necessarily mean we agree or disagree with the ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Will: 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 it 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.

Logan Sekulow: 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 got 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.

Will: I do want to say one thing. We had someone that said, "Buy American, stop lying about your camera equipment." 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 anywhere. 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. So yes, and if you are expanding, if you're doing a studio, everything is going to go up in price because those countries that manufacture this, 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 that to correct that. And you know that, honestly. 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 interacting with us by a non-American made piece of technology.

Logan Sekulow: Yes, you have a Apple iPhone, which of course Apple is an American company and it says "Designed in California," but where is it manufactured? 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 what 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, if you only get—some of you on local terrestrial radio you only get a half hour—you can find us live every day. Pre-record or post later on whenever, however you get your podcast, you can find us on ACLJ.org. However you get your podcast, YouTube, all that.

But we are live every day, 12:00 to 1:00 PM 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 interview 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 giving $5 a month or $500 a month. So do it today if you can. Create that great baseline for us. We really could 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/champions. We'll be right back.

Jay Sekulow: For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines, protecting your freedoms, defending your rights in courts, in Congress, and in the public arena. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org where you can learn more about our life-changing work. Become a member today. ACLJ.org.