Supreme

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court agreed Monday to rule on whether the Trump administration may end the temporary protection that had been extended in the past to migrants who live and work in the United States.

At issue are legal protections for about 6,000 Syrians and up to 350,000 Haitians.

The court’s announcement signals the justices want to resolve this issue in a written opinion rather through emergency appeals.

Twice last year, the court’s conservatives set aside decisions from judges in San Francisco who said President Trump’s Homeland Security secretary had overstepped her authority.

Those cases involved the temporary protection status extended to about 600,000 Venezuelans.

But those decisions did not set clear precedents, and in recent weeks, judges in New York and Washington, D.C., blocked the administration’s plan to end the special protections for Haitians and Syrians.

Frustrated by what he labeled “indefensible” decisions, Trump’s Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer advised the court to hear arguments and issue a written ruling on the issue.

The justices on Monday agreed to just that. Arguments will be heard in April, and a decision will be handed down by July.

Immigrant-rights advocates argued the repeal of the special protection would be cruel and unjust to migrants who have established lives and careers in this country.

In 1990, Congress authorized giving temporary shelter to non-citizens from countries experiencing armed conflict, natural disaster or “extraordinary and temporary conditions” that prevent them from returning there.

In 2012, the Homeland Security secretary extended this protection to Syrians in response to a “brutal crackdown” engineered by its then-President Bashar al-Assad.

Last year, citing Assad’s fall from power, Trump’s Secretary Kristi Noem proposed to cancel the temporary protection for Syrians. Lawyers for the Syrians questioned how this could be seen as an emergency requiring an immediate ruling.

They said about 6,100 Syrians who have lived here lawfully for years.

They are “highly sought-after doctors and medical professionals, reporters, students, teachers, business owners, caretakers, and others who have been repeatedly vetted and by definition have virtually no criminal history. The government apparently needs urgent authority to send them to a country in the middle of an active war,” the lawyers said.

In 2010, the Obama administration extended the protection to Haiti after an earthquake caused death and damage in Port-au-Prince, the capital.

Judges in New York and Washington blocked those repeals and said the high court had given “no explanation” for its decision upholding the repeal for Venezuelans.

Those judges said the Supreme Court’s earlier orders orders “involved a TPS designation of a different country, with different factual circumstances, and different grounds for resolution by the district court.”

Sauer pointed to a provision in the 1990 law that says judges have no authority to second-guess the government’s decision to end it.

“There is no judicial review of any determination of the [Secretary] with respect to the designation, or termination or extension of a designation, of a foreign state under this subsection,” the law says.

In the three weeks since Trump’s attorney filed his emergency appeal, there have been two significant changes since then.

Trump fired Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. And his war launched against Iran threatens countries throughout the Mideast, including Syria.

In agreeing to hear the pair of cases, the justices did not disturb the lower court rulings that blocked the repeals for now.

Iran’s new Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei has never held a formal position in government, but his appointment as his late father’s successor amid the US-Israeli war on his country was not unexpected.

Iran’s Assembly of Experts appointed the 56-year-old mid-ranking religious scholar to the position on Sunday, just over a week after his late father, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was killed in United States-Israeli strikes.

Khamenei, who has strong ties with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and his late father’s still-influential office, is seen as a hardliner who will provide continuity in the country.

His appointment, which came after he lost both his father and his wife in strikes, was interpreted as a defiant choice signalling continuity as the Islamic Republic faces the biggest crisis in its 47-year history.

Khamenei received immediate backing from figures in Iran’s political and security establishment, including IRGC leaders, President Masoud Pezeshkian and Ali Larijani, secretary of the Supreme National Security Council.

Outside the country, reactions were mixed:

Oman

Oman was a mediator in recent talks between Iran and the United States, which collapsed when the US and Israel unleashed their war on Iran last month.

Oman’s Sultan Haitham bin Tariq Al Said on Monday sent a “cable of congratulations” to Khamenei on his appointment as Iran’s new supreme leader, according to the official Oman News Agency.

Iraq

Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani also congratulated Khamenei on his appointment on Monday.

“We express our confidence in the ability of the new leadership in the Islamic Republic of Iran to manage this sensitive stage, and continue to strengthen the unity of the Iranian people in facing the current challenges,” al-Sudani said in a statement.

He reaffirmed Iraq’s solidarity and support for Iran and “all steps aimed at ending the conflict and rejecting military operations against its sovereignty, in order to preserve the stability of other countries in the region”.

United States

US President Donald Trump had previously dismissed Mojtaba Khamenei as a “lightweight”, and insisted he should have a say in appointing a new Iranian leader, which Tehran rejected.

On Monday, Trump told NBC News, “I think they made a big mistake. I don’t know if it’s going to last. I think they made a mistake.”

Later on Monday, he told CBS News: “I have no message for him.”

Trump said he has someone in mind to lead Iran, but did not elaborate.

Israel

The ⁠Israeli ⁠military has already threatened to kill any replacement for the late Ali Khamenei.

Israel’s Foreign Ministry said Monday that Mojtaba Khamenei was a “tyrant” like his slain father, and would continue what it described as the Iranian “regime’s brutality”.

In a post on X featuring a picture of Mojtaba Khamenei and his father Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, holding guns, the ministry wrote: “Mojtaba Khamenei. Like Father Like Son”.

“Mojtaba Khamenei’s hands are already stained with the bloodshed that defined his father’s rule. Another tyrant to continue the Iranian regime’s brutality,” said the ministry.

Russia

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Monday pledged “unwavering support” to Iran.

“I would like to reaffirm our unwavering support for Tehran and solidarity with our Iranian friends,” Putin said in a message to Khamenei, adding that “Russia has been and will remain a reliable partner” to Iran.

“At a time when Iran is confronting armed aggression, your tenure in this high position will undoubtedly require great courage and dedication,” the Russian leader said.

China

China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun told reporters on Monday that Iran’s decision to appoint the younger Khamenei was “based on its constitution”.

“China opposes interference in other countries’ internal affairs under any pretext, and Iran’s sovereignty, security, and territorial integrity should be respected,” he said when asked about the threats against the new leader.

Beijing is a close partner of Tehran and condemned the killing of the former supreme leader, but it has also criticised the Iranian counterstrikes against Gulf states.

Yemen’s Houthis

Yemen’s Houthi rebels on Monday welcomed the appointment of the new supreme leader.

“We congratulate the Islamic Republic of Iran, its leadership and people, on the selection of Sayyid Mojtaba Khamenei as Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution at this important and pivotal juncture,” the group said in a statement on Telegram.

It called his selection “a new victory for the Islamic Revolution and a resounding blow to the enemies of the Islamic Republic and the enemies of the nation”.

A new supreme leader in Iran – Mojtaba Khamenei – has replaced his assassinated father.

His selection sends a defiant message to the United States and Israel as they attack the country.

So, who is Iran’s new leader – and what does his appointment mean?

Presenter: Tom McRae

Guests:

Hassan Ahmadian – Associate professor at the University of Tehran

Mehran Kamrava – Professor at Georgetown University in Qatar and director of the Iranian Studies Unit at the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies

Alex Vatanka – Senior fellow at the Middle East Institute in Washington, DC

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has pledged allegiance to Mojtaba Khamenei, the country’s newly-elected supreme leader. While some Iranians have celebrated, many are dismayed the 56-year-old cleric, accused of human rights abuses, has ascended to the country’s highest office.

Iran has named Mojtaba Khamenei as its new supreme leader, just over a week after the assassination of his father, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in joint United States-Israeli strikes that have plunged the entire region into a sprawling war.

The 56-year-old, who will now be charged with leading the Islamic Republic through the biggest crisis in its 47-year history, was named by clerics as his father’s successor on Sunday.

Key leaders, Iran’s powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and the armed forces were quick to pledge their backing to the new leader.

Ali Larijani, secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, who has been tasked with steering Iran’s security strategy since the US and Israel launched their all-out offensive, called for unity around the new supreme leader.

Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf welcomed the choice, saying that following the new supreme leader was a “religious and national duty”.

Mojtaba Khamenei has never run for office or been subjected to a public vote, but has for decades been a highly influential figure in the inner circle of the supreme leader, cultivating deep ties to the IRGC.

In recent years, Khamenei has increasingly been touted as a top potential replacement for his father. His selection could be a sign that more hardline factions in Iran’s establishment retain power, and could indicate that the government has little desire to agree to a deal or negotiations in the short term as the war enters its second week.

Al Jazeera’s Ali Hashem described Khamenei as his “father’s gatekeeper”.

“He adopts the positions of his father with respect to the United States, with respect to Israel. So we are expecting a confrontational leader. We’re not expecting any moderation,” he said.

“However, if this war comes to an end and he is still alive, and he is able to continue running the country, there is going to be big potential… to find new routes for Iran,” Hashem said.

Rami Khouri, a distinguished public policy fellow at the American University of Beirut, said Khamenei’s appointment signals “continuity” and that it remains to be seen whether the new supreme leader will push for negotiations to end the war.

Either way, he said, the appointment was “an act of defiance”. Iran is “telling the Americans and Israelis, ‘You wanted to get rid of our system? Well … this is a more radical person than his father who was assassinated,’” he said.

Heidari Alekasir, a member of the Assembly of Experts that was tasked with choosing the supreme leader, said the candidate had been picked based on the late Khamenei’s advice that Iran’s top leader should “be hated by the enemy” instead of praised by it.

“Even the Great Satan [US] has mentioned his name,” the senior cleric said in reference to US President Donald Trump’s earlier statement that Mojtaba Khamenei would be an “unacceptable” choice for him to lead Iran.

Israel’s military had previously warned any successor that “we will not hesitate to target you”.

On Sunday, Trump again promised to exert influence over who is selected as Iran’s next supreme leader, saying that, without Washington’s approval, whoever is picked for the role is “not going to last long”.

The selection of Khamenei’s son is certain to enrage Trump.

Supreme leader not decided by ‘Epstein’s gang’

The 88-member Assembly of Experts said on Sunday that it “did not hesitate for a minute” in choosing a new supreme leader, despite “the brutal aggression of the criminal America and the evil Zionist regime”.

Earlier, the clerical body had indicated it had reached a majority consensus on its choice, without naming who it was, with one member saying, “The path of ⁠Imam Khomeini and ⁠the path of the martyr Imam Khamenei has been ⁠chosen. The name of ⁠Khamenei will continue.”

Mojtaba Khamenei studied under conservative clerics in the seminaries of Qom, the heart of Shia theological learning, and holds the clerical rank of hojjatoleslam, a mid-level clerical ranking.

Ali Khamenei, who led Iran for 37 years, succeeding Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who had led the 1979 revolution, was killed in a US-Israeli strike on Tehran on February 28, at the outset of the war, which has now unleashed chaos throughout the Middle East.

The ⁠Israeli ⁠military has already threatened to kill any replacement for Khamenei, while Trump said the war may only end once Iran’s military and leaders have been wiped out.

“He’s going to have to get approval from us,” Trump told ABC News. “If he doesn’t get approval from us, he’s not going to last long,” Trump said on Sunday of any new supreme leader.

Iranian officials have rejected Trump’s push to be involved in the selection of the next leader, insisting that only Iranians can decide the future of their country.

On Friday, Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf appeared to ridicule the US president’s demands.

“The fate of dear Iran, which is more precious than life, will be determined solely by the proud Iranian nation, not by [Jeffrey] Epstein’s gang,” Ghalibaf wrote on X, referring to the late sex offender who had ties to rich and powerful figures in the US.

Dark skies

As clerics selected the new supreme leader, a dark haze hung over Tehran after Israel struck five oil facilities in and around the capital city overnight, setting them ablaze and filling the skies with acrid smoke.

As the war extended into its ninth day, the IRGC said they had enough supplies to continue their drone and missile attacks across the Middle East for up to six months.

IRGC spokesman Ali Mohammad Naini said Iran had so far used only first- and second-generation missiles, but would use “advanced and less-used long-range missiles” in the coming days.

Trump again refused to rule out sending American ground troops into Iran, but continued to insist that the war was all but won, despite the ongoing Iranian missile and drone strikes.

Analysts warn there is no clear path to ending the conflict, which US and Israeli officials say could last a month or longer.

Iran’s military and political leaders pledge allegiance to Mojtaba Khamenei as Saudi Arabia reports two deaths amid Iranian counterattacks.

March 8 (UPI) — Members of the Iranian body charged with selecting the country’s new supreme leader said a candidate has been chosen, but no name has been revealed.

Mohsen Heydari, a member of the selection body, told Iran’s state-run ISNA news agency that a decision has been made on the successor to supreme leader Ali Khamenei, who was killed in joint U.S.-Israeli air strikes Feb. 28.

“The most suitable candidate, approved by the majority of the Assembly of Experts, has been determined,” Heydari said.

Mohammad Mehdi Mirbagheri, another member of the assembly, confirmed Heydari’s statement to the state-run Fars news agency.

Israeli forces have pledged to target Khamenei’s successor, as well as anyone involved in appointing a new supreme leader.

Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz revealed Sunday that Abu-al-Qasem Baba’iyan, who was appointed last week as the new head of the supreme leader’s military bureau, has been killed.

An Iranian missile strike injured five people Sunday in central Israel. One person was reported killed in an Iranian strike in Dubai on Saturday. Sunday morning strikes were also reported in Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

The strikes came just one day after Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian issued a pre-recorded statement apologizing to neighboring countries targeted in Iranian strikes, and pledged to suspend such attacks, unless attacks on Iran originated from those locations.

Meanwhile, two Israeli soldiers were killed Sunday morning in Lebanon, marking the country’s first fatalities in its campaign against Iran-aligned Hezbollah.

Lebanese health minister Rakan Nasreddine said at least 394 people have been killed in the country since Israeli strikes began last week.

March 4 (Asia Today) — In U.S. history, only one president served four terms: Franklin D. Roosevelt. Facing the unprecedented economic crisis of the Great Depression, Roosevelt pushed forward sweeping New Deal legislation to revive the economy. With Congress controlled by his Democratic Party, the political environment initially seemed favorable.

However, Roosevelt’s New Deal soon faced a major obstacle: opposition from the conservative-leaning U.S. Supreme Court. Several core New Deal laws were struck down as unconstitutional.

After winning re-election in 1936 with 61% of the vote, Roosevelt proposed a plan to expand the Supreme Court. Under the proposal, the president could appoint additional justices if sitting justices over the age of 70 years and six months did not retire. Because six justices were already over that age, the court could have expanded from nine members to as many as fifteen.

The proposal became known as “court packing” – an attempt to add justices favorable to the administration.

Opposition emerged from unexpected quarters. Not only Republicans but also members of Roosevelt’s own Democratic Party objected. Even Vice President John Nance Garner opposed the plan, warning it could create a dangerous precedent by allowing a president to reshape the judiciary for political purposes.

The proposal was ultimately withdrawn without a vote.

Another leader who reshaped the judiciary was Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez. After taking power, Chávez expanded the number of Supreme Court justices and appointed individuals loyal to his government. Once the executive branch gained control over the judiciary, the court largely lost its ability to check the administration.

The consequences were severe. Venezuela’s political system deteriorated, and the power structure Chávez built has remained firmly in place under his successor, Nicolás Maduro.

In South Korea, a revision to the Court Organization Act aimed at expanding the number of Supreme Court justices passed the National Assembly on Feb. 28 with 173 votes in favor, 73 against and one abstention. The legislation now awaits promulgation by the president.

If enacted, the number of Supreme Court justices will increase from 14 to 26. President Lee Jae-myung would have the authority to appoint not only the 12 newly added justices but also replacements for 10 justices whose terms are set to expire, including Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae. In total, the president could appoint 22 of the court’s 26 justices during his term.

Expanding the number of justices is not simply a matter of increasing seats.

In Venezuela, Chávez filled the court with allies and during his tenure the Supreme Court issued virtually no rulings against the government. The judiciary effectively lost its role as an independent check on executive power.

Even Roosevelt – widely admired in American history – saw his attempt to expand the Supreme Court become one of the most controversial episodes of his presidency.

History offers clear lessons about the consequences of governments attempting to dominate the judiciary. Once the independence of the courts is compromised and the balance of powers between branches of government is weakened, any leader risks being viewed as moving toward authoritarian rule.

— Kim Chae-yeon, Asia Today

The views expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of the publication.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Iran’s Assembly of Experts is now tasked with choosing the next Supreme Leader. It elected Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in 1989.

WASHINGTON, March 4 (UPI) — The Supreme Court on Wednesday considered whether the brokers who connect shippers with trucking companies can be held liable for irresponsible drivers.

The case, Montgomery vs. Caribe Transport II LLC, stems from a 2017 incident in which Shawn Montgomery, the petitioner, suffered significant injuries after a tractor-trailer hit his parked truck on the side of an Illinois highway.

A key part of the case is the interpretation of part of the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994. It prevents state laws “related to a price, route or service” of trucking companies or brokers that connect them to shippers.

However, the statute also provides an exception, stating that it will “not restrict the safety regulatory authority of a state with respect to motor vehicles.”

The outcome could redefine liability standards for freight brokers and impact the broader transportation industry and interstate commerce landscape.

The driver of the tractor-trailer, Yosniel Varela-Mojena, had been involved in a crash months earlier, but was still employed by Caribe Transport II, an interstate trucking company. Freight broker C.H. Robinson recruited Caribe II to deliver a cross-country shipment. After the crash, Montgomery sued the broker for negligent hiring under Illinois state laws.

During the arguments, the two sides disagreed about whether the phrase “with respect to motor vehicles” includes brokers.

“We do believe that ‘with respect to motor vehicles’ is the crucial question here,” said Theodore Boutrous Jr., Caribe II’s counsel. He argued Congress did not intend for brokers to be included.

The attorney for the United States agreed that the two different sections of the law being discussed should, in context, be taken altogether to mean that brokers are not included in the realm of “motor vehicles.”

“Paragraph one uses the phrase ‘with respect to the transportation of property,’ [and] paragraph two [says] ‘with respect to motor vehicles,'” said Sopan Joshi, assistant to the U.S. solicitor general. “That seems like a conscious choice that Congress made to parallel the language, but change the noun to a much narrower noun.”

Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh questioned Paul Clement, Montgomery’s counsel, on how brokers would address safety concerns if the court were to rule in favor of Montgomery and say that brokers are liable for consequences of negligent hiring.

For instance, Kavanaugh suggested drivers should be proficient in English to ensure safety. In April 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to enforce English-language requirements for commercial motor vehicle drivers.

“If you’re hiring drivers who can’t read the signs, that seems like a safety issue,” Kavanaugh said.

Clement said brokers could work with larger trucking companies with deeper pockets and check that they have adequate programs in place to test drivers for drug use, check on prior accidents and address other potential concerns.

“One of the reasons, I think, that you do want [brokers] to have some duty of care in these circumstances is this is a margin business,” Clement said. “If they don’t have any sort of incentive to internalize any of the cost of not asking the question, they really have no good reason to ask the question. They want the cheapest carrier.”

Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked Joshi to explain why he thought Congress did not think brokers should share responsibility for safety given the language in the 1994 law.

“The problem, I think, with the argument in the way that you’ve set it up is that you are assuming away any responsibility that a broker might have for safety,” Jackson said.

Joshi argued that Congress did not intend for brokers to have responsibility regarding safety and could have worded the law differently if it did.

“Congress has an entire chapter, several chapters, of the U.S. Code in Title 49 that deal with safety addressing carriers, safety of motor vehicles, driver qualifications, and they’re all addressed at carriers,” Joshi said. “Not a single one is addressed at brokers.”

Joshi acknowledged that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration is “understaffed,” “overworked” and unable to review all of the federally registered carriers. However, he said Congress has provided ways of bringing consequences against carriers who violate federal requirements and regulations.

In his closing rebuttal, Clement told the court that 94% of registered carriers on the road do not have meaningful federal safety inspections — a number derived from 2021 Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration data.

He said state tort law could provide a “backstop to the federal system.”

“This case doesn’t have to be that hard. The thing that triggers state tort liability is an 80,000-pound motor vehicle. That’s what devastatingly injured my client,” Clement said.

The court is expected to issue a ruling by summer.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court revived a San Diego judge’s order Monday and said parents have a right to know about their child’s gender identity at school.

The decision came in a 6-3 order granting an emergency appeal from lawyers for Chicago-based Thomas More Society.

They said the student privacy policy enforced in California infringes parents’ rights and the free exercise of religion.

“The parents object that these policies prevent schools from telling them about their children’s efforts to engage in gender transitioning at school unless the children consent to parental notification,” the court said. “The parents also take issue with California’s requirement that schools use children’s preferred names and pronouns regardless of their parents’ wishes.”

The judge’s injunction “does not provide relief for all the parents of California public school students, but only for those parents who object to the challenged policies or seek religious exemptions,” the justices added.

The six conservatives were in the majority, while the three liberals dissented.

Religious liberty advocates hailed the decision.

“Parents’ fundamental right to raise their children according to their faith doesn’t stop at the schoolhouse door,” said Mark Rienzi, president of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. “California tried cutting parents out of their children’s lives while forcing teachers to hide the school’s behavior from parents. We’re glad the Court stepped in to block this anti-family, anti-American policy.”

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had put on hold a late December ruling by U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez, who held that the student privacy rules enforced by California school officials were unconstitutional.

“Parents and guardians have a federal constitutional right to be informed if their public school student child expresses gender incongruence,” Benitez wrote. “Teachers and school staff have a federal constitutional right to accurately inform the parent or guardian of their student when the student expresses gender incongruence.”

Escondido public schoolteachers Elizabeth Mirabelli and Lori Ann West, who described themselves as “devout Catholics,” sued in 2023, and they were later joined by parents in Pasadena and Clovis.

The Supreme Court’s ruling refers only to the parents.

The parents who brought the case “have sincere religious beliefs about sex and gender, and they feel a religious obligation to raise their children in accordance with those beliefs,” the court said.

The court added: “Gender dysphoria is a condition that has an important bearing on a child’s mental health, but when a child exhibits symptoms of gender dysphoria at school, California’s policies conceal that information from parents and facilitate a degree of gender transitioning during school hours.”

“This is a watershed moment for parental rights in America,” said Paul M. Jonna, special counsel at Thomas More Society. “The Supreme Court has told California and every state in the nation in no uncertain terms: you cannot secretly transition a child behind a parent’s back.”

The 9th Circuit had agreed with the state’s attorneys who said the judge had misstated California law.

“The state does not categorically forbid disclosure of information about students’ gender identities to parents without student consent,” they said in a 3-0 decision.

“For example, guidance from the California Attorney General expressly states that schools can ‘allow disclosure where a student does not consent where there is a compelling need to do so to protect the student’s wellbeing,’ and California Education Code allows disclosure to avert a clear danger to the well-being of a child.”

In their parents’ rights appeal to the Supreme Court, attorneys said school employees are secretly encouraging gender transitions.

“California is requiring public schools to hide children’s expressed transgender status at school from their own parents — including religious parents — and to actively facilitate those children’s social transitions over their parents’ express objection,” they told the court.

“Right now, California’s parental deception scheme is keeping families in the dark and causing irreparable harm. That’s why we’re asking the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene immediately,” Jonna wrote in his appeal. “Every day these gender secrecy policies stay in effect, children suffer and parents are left in the dark.”

California state attorneys had urged the court to put the case on hold while it is under appeal.

They said the judge’s order “appears to categorically bar schools across the State from ever respecting a student’s desire for privacy about their gender identity or expression — or respecting a student’s request to be addressed by a particular name or pronouns—over a parent’s objection.”

They said the order “would allow no exceptions, even for extreme cases where students or teachers reasonably fear that the student will suffer physical or mental abuse.”

U.S. President Donald Trump says that Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has been killed. Khamenei was among a number of senior Iranian officials targeted in the initial wave of U.S.-Israeli strikes earlier today.

Readers can first get caught up on the ongoing conflict in our previous rolling coverage here.

“Khamenei, one of the most evil people in History, is dead. This is not only Justice for the people of Iran, but for all Great Americans, and those people from many Countries throughout the World, that have been killed or mutilated by Khamenei and his gang of bloodthirsty THUGS,” Trump wrote in a post on his Truth Social social media network. “He was unable to avoid our Intelligence and Highly Sophisticated Tracking Systems and, working closely with Israel, there was not a thing he, or the other leaders that have been killed along with him, could do.”

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration on Monday urged the Supreme Court to limit the reach of the 2nd Amendment and deny gun rights to “habitual” users of drugs, including marijuana.

But most of the justices sounded skeptical. They questioned whether marijuana users are so dangerous they should not have firearms.

They noted too that President Trump signed a recent executive order to reclassify marijuana as lesser controlled substance.

“Why is this a test case?,” asked Justice Neil M. Gorsuch.

Federal laws on “controlled substances” and the 2nd Amendment created a conflict between gun rights and illegal drugs, but Gorsuch said marijuana users are not seen as a particular danger to the public.

“This is an odd case to have chosen” to resolve this legal dispute, he said.

Most of the justices said they were wary of ruling broadly to decide the legal status of other addictive drugs.

At issue was a provision of the Gun Control Act of 1968, which forbids gun possession by any person who “is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.”

The Justice Department says about 300 people per year are charged with a crime under this provision. They include Hunter Biden, the former president’s son, who was charged and convicted of lying about his drug addiction when he applied for a handgun permit.

The case brought together civil libertarians and gun rights advocates, who said millions of Americans could face criminal charges if the government’s view is upheld.

Deputy Solicitor Gen. Sarah Harris, representing the administration, said the court should uphold the law to deny guns to habitual users of unlawful drugs.

“Congress decided it is dangerous to mix firearms with controlled substances,” she said.

But Erin Murphy, a Washington attorney, said gun owners have not been notice that having a handgun at home could lead to a criminal prosecution if they sometimes use marijuana.

She said the court should hand down a “narrow” decision that spares her client.

Ali Hemani, a Texas man, was investigated by the FBI in 2020 for his family’s suspected ties to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, a designated terrorist group.

When the FBI obtained a warrant to search his home, agents found a Glock pistol and 60 grams of marijuana as well as 4.7 grams of cocaine in his mother’s room. Hemani said he used marijuana about every other day.

He was charged with illegal gun possession because he was an unlawful drug user.

But citing the 2nd Amendment, a federal judge and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the charges on the grounds that he was not under the influence of drugs at the time of his arrest.

Appealing, the Trump administration said the Supreme Court should uphold the 1968 law and deny guns to those who are “habitual users” of illegal drugs.

Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer said this prosecution “falls well within Congress’s authority to temporarily disarm categories of dangerous persons — here, habitual drug users.”

From the nation’s founding, “habitual drunkards” could be prohibited from having guns and that historic principle supports denying guns to habitual drug users.

The American Civil Liberties Union defended Hemani said the government’s view threatens to broadly extend the reach of the criminal law.

“Like tens of millions of Americans, Ali Hemani owned a handgun for self-defense, keeping it safely secured at home. Like many of those same Americans, he also consumed marijuana a few days a week,” they said in their brief.

“According to the government, those two facts alone sufficed to make him an ‘unlawful user’ of a controlled substance who could face criminal penalties.”

March 1 (UPI) — The Supreme Court will determine whether people who regularly smoke marijuana will be allowed to own guns.

In United States v. Hemani, which goes before the Supreme Court on Monday, the Trump administration will attempt to uphold their prosecution of Ali Danial Hemani, who lives in Texas.

In 2022, FBI officials found that Hemani, who is a dual citizen in the United States and Pakistan, owned a pistol while in possession of marijuana and cocaine.

When Hemani said that he engaged in marijuana use approximately every other day, he was indicted, facing up to 15 years behind bars, but the charge was dismissed.

The 1968 law he allegedly violated was meant to disarm people who used drugs.

An appeals court stated that there was not enough “tradition of gun regulation” to “support disarming a sober person based solely on past substance usage,” USA Today reported.

“I think what the court is being asked to decide, and I would imagine the reason it took the case, is to give some more guidance about what kinds of people can be disarmed without violating the Second Amendment,” said Joseph Blocher, one of the Duke Center for Firearms Law, CBS News reported.

Fundamentally, that’s what this case is about,” Blocher said.

Iranian state media confirmed that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader since 1989, was killed in a joint US-Israeli air strike. Here’s what we know about him and the key moments that defined his rule.

Feb. 25 (UPI) — The Supreme Court‘s ruling to limit President Donald Trump‘s use of emergency powers to impose tariffs is forcing the administration to look to different statutory authorities to carry out its trade policy.

On Friday, the Supreme Court ruled that the president could not use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to generate revenue through tariffs. While this caused Trump to seek another avenue to impose tariffs, landing on a global 15% rate through Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, his plans to use tariffs to negotiate trade deals have not changed.

The decision impacts a great deal of the tariffs Trump has enacted during his second term, Purba Mukerji, professor of economics at Connecticut College, told UPI. She said he has been using the IEEPA to give himself “flexibility” in trade negotiations since returning to the White House.

Trump expressed disappointment in the high court’s decision on Friday but Mukerji said it was expected by economists and is unlikely to disrupt the president’s broader economic policy. Tariffs on steel and aluminum, as well as those that target certain sectors, are likely to remain in place.

U.S. markets have not strongly reacted to the Supreme Court ruling in either direction. The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell by less than a point on Monday, only to rebound on Tuesday. The S&P 500 followed a similar path.

The yield on 10-year U.S. Treasury notes has reflected some uncertainty, though concerns about AI displacing workers, global tensions and broader trade concerns may be factors as well.

“For the business leaders who make decisions, for importers and exporters and foreign countries that are dealing with us in their trade negotiations, this is not a surprise,” Mukerji said. “So I don’t think there will be any long-lasting consequences of this particular Supreme Court ruling, except to put the whole trade negotiations and trade policy on much firmer footing.”

Consumers hoping to see prices come down are unlikely to see significant changes from the ruling either, Mukerji added.

“As far as consumer prices go, I am encouraged by the fact that we didn’t see the rise in consumer prices that was expected in all sectors coming out of tariffs,” she said. “I don’t expect that to be coming down in the future. I don’t think much will change on the ground.”

A study by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York published earlier this month reports that 94% of Trump’s tariffs imposed last year were paid by U.S. entities and consumers during the first eight months of 2025.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection reported in December that it had collected $200 billion in tariff revenue. The largest portion of tariffs collected was on imports from China, a report by the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond said. The report is based on data from the U.S. Treasury Department and Census Bureau.

We Pay The Tariffs, a coalition of more than 800 small businesses, is circulating a petition to call for the federal government to refund businesses due to the tariffs being ruled unlawful.

“A legal victory is meaningless without actual relief for the businesses that paid these tariffs,” Dan Anthony, executive director of the organization, said in a statement. “The administration’s only responsible course of action now is to establish a fast, efficient and automatic refund process that returns tariff money to the businesses that paid it.”

It remains unclear what will happen to the revenue the court ruled has been unlawfully collected. The Supreme Court did not address refunds for tariffs paid.

Mukerji said reimbursing collected tariffs poses some practical challenges. She explained that while the United States maintains a database of who has paid what tariffs, it often shows a delivery company, like FedEx, as the entity that made the payment, not the importer who in reality incurred the costs.

“So you kind of have to reimburse FedEx, who then turns around and reimburses the importer,” she said. “That is a mess because then we depend on the account keeping, say by FedEx, so it becomes more complicated there.”

There is also a matter of fairness as some wholesalers pass the costs of tariffs on to retailers, who then pass them on to consumers, Mukerji said.

Following the court’s decision, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the Trump administration will look to Section 122, as well as Section 301 of the Trade Act and Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 tariff authorities to pursue “virtually unchanged tariff revenue” this year.

These statutes notably do not require congressional approval to impose tariffs like the Supreme Court affirmed the IEEPA did.

Section 122 gives the president the authority to impose a maximum 15% tariff for up to 150 days. Tariffs imposed under this authority would remain in effect into July at the latest.

Section 301 of the Trade Act gives the president the authority to impose tariffs in response to unfair trade practices, theft of intellectual property and discriminatory policies by trade partners. An investigation by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative must be completed to determine if there is a violation and allow for the use of Section 301 authority.

Trump’s broad tariffs on China were issued in 2018 under the authority of Section 301.

Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act allows the president to impose tariffs and other trade restrictions on imports if they are determined to threaten national security. This must be preceded by an investigation by the Commerce Department into the potential of a threat.

Trump used Section 232 to place tariffs on steel and aluminum during his first term.

While President Joe Biden peeled back on many of Trump’s policies when he came into office, he kept some trade policies like these largely intact and reinforced them through investigations.

For Section 301 tariffs, Biden allowed the required four-year review to continue throughout his term, ultimately raising tariffs on electric vehicles from China as well as some semiconductors, critical minerals and other sectors.

For Section 232 tariffs, Biden kept Trump’s tariff framework largely in place and continued to use the national security justification to keep tariffs as a point of negotiations.

“Biden actually made them stronger,” Mukerji said. “Most of them continued under Biden and they were extended and made even stronger. So these trade policies now have the strength of a solid foundation. These stand on the shoulders of investigations so they have this lasting power.”

The Supreme Court’s decision has caused some ongoing negotiations to shift or pause.

Earlier this week, a planned meeting with India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi in Washington, D.C., was put on hold. The sides were planning to meet for three days to discuss an interim trade deal that would likely go into effect in April.

The European Union’s parliament canceled a vote to ratify a trade deal with the United States on Monday in response to the Supreme Court decision and Trump’s subsequent new tariffs.

“A deal is a deal,” the European Commission said in a statement on Saturday. “As the United States’ largest trading partner, the EU expects the U.S. to honor its commitments set out in the Joint Statement — just as the EU stands by its commitments.”

With the Supreme Court’s decision, the Trump administration and future administrations definitively have one less tool to use when imposing tariffs. The ruling does not mark an end to Trump’s tariff plans. It only clarifies his authority to impose tariffs. Meanwhile, the president is left to negotiate trade deals under greater scrutiny.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday the U.S. Postal Service is shielded from being sued even if its employees intentionally fail to deliver the mail.

In a 5-4 decision, the court said Congress in 1946 had barred lawsuits “arising out of the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of letters or postal matter,” and that includes mail that is stolen or misdirected by postal employees.

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the court, said the law broadly bars complaints involving lost or missing mail.

“A ‘miscarriage of mail’ includes failure of the mail to arrive at its intended destination, regardless of the carrier’s intent or where the mail goes instead,” he said.

The ruliing is a setback but not a final defeat for Lebene Konan, a Texas real estate agent who is Black. She had sued contending white postal carriers refused to deliver her mail to two houses where she rented rooms.

She did not live at either property but said she stayed there “from time to time.”

She first complained to the post office in Euless, Texas, after she learned the mail carrier had changed the listed owner on a central postal box from Konan’s name to a tenant’s name.

After two years of frustration, she sued the United States in 2022 alleging the Postal Service had intentionally and wrongly withheld her mail. She sought damages for emotional distress, a loss of rental income and for racial discrimination.

Her claim of racial bias was dismissed by a federal judge and a U.S. appeals court and did not figure in the Supreme Court’s decision.

However, the 5th Circuit Court ruled she could go forward with her suit alleging she was a victim of intentional misconduct on the part of postal employees.

The Biden and Trump administrations urged the court to hear the case and to reject lawsuits against the Postal Service based on claims of intentional wrongdoing.

They said the 5th Circuit’s ruling could “open the floodgates of litigation.” They noted the Postal Service delivers about 113 billion pieces of mail per year and receives about 335,000 complaints over lost mail and other matters.

“We hold that the postal exception covers suits against the United States for the intentional nondelivery of mail,” Thomas said. “We do not decide whether all of Konan’s claims are barred.”

Joining Thomas to limit lawsuits against the Postal Service were Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the law refers to a “loss” or “miscarriage” of the mail, which suggests negligence.

“Today, the court holds that one exception — the postal exception — prevents individuals from recovering for injuries based on a postal employee’s intentional misconduct, including when an employee maliciously withholds their mail,” Sotomayor wrote.

Joining her were Justices Elena Kagan, Neil M. Gorsuch and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

WASHINGTON — A trio of Senate Democrats is calling for the government to start refunding roughly $175 billion in tariff revenues that the Supreme Court ruled were collected because of an illegal set of orders by President Trump.

Sens. Ron Wyden of Oregon, Ed Markey of Massachusetts and Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire are unveiling a bill on Monday that would require U.S. Customs and Border Protection to issue refunds over the course of 180 days and pay interest on the refunded amount.

The measure would prioritize refunds to small businesses and encourages importers, wholesalers and large companies to pass the refunds on to their customers.

“Trump’s illegal tax scheme has already done lasting damage to American families, small businesses and manufacturers who have been hammered by wave after wave of new Trump tariffs,” said Wyden, stressing that the “crucial first step” to fixing the problem begins with “putting money back in the pockets of small businesses and manufacturers as soon as possible.”

The bill is unlikely to become law, but it reveals how Democrats are starting to apply public pressure on a Trump administration that has shown little interest in trying to return tariff revenues after the Supreme Court announced its 6-3 ruling on Friday.

Because of the ruling, going into November’s midterm elections for control of Congress, Democrats have begun telling the public that Trump illegally raised taxes and now refuses to repay the money back to the American people.

Shaheen said that repairing any of the damage caused by the tariffs in the form of higher prices starts with “President Trump refunding the illegally collected tariff taxes that Americans were forced to pay.” Markey stressed that small business tend to have ”little to no resources” and a “refund process can be extremely difficult and time consuming” for companies.

The Trump administration has asserted that its hands are tied, because any refunds should be the responsibility of further litigation in court.

That message could put Republicans on the defensive as they try to explain why the government isn’t proactively seeking to return the money. GOP lawmakers had planned to try to preserve their House and Senate majorities by running on the income tax cuts that Trump signed into law last year, saying that tax refunds this year would help families.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told CNN on Sunday that it’s “bad framing” to raise the question of refunds because the Supreme Court ruling did not address the issue. The administration’s position is that any refunds will be decided by lawsuits winding their way through the legal system, rather than by a president who has repeatedly stressed to voters that he has the ability to act with speed and resolve.

“It is not up to the administration — it is up to the lower court,” Bessent said, stressing that rather than offer any guidance he would “wait” for a court opinion on refunds.

Trump has defended his use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose broad tariffs on almost every U.S. trading partner, saying that his ability to levy taxes on imports had helped to end military conflicts, bring in new federal revenues and apply pressure for negotiating trade frameworks.

The University of Pennsylvania’s Penn Wharton Budget Model released estimates that the refunds would total $175 billion. That’s the equivalent of an average of $1,300 per U.S. household. But determining how to structure reimbursements would be tricky, as the costs of the tariffs flowed through the economy in the form of customers paying the taxes directly as well as importers passing along the cost either indirectly or absorbing them.

The president has previously claimed that refunds would drive up U.S. government debt and hurt the economy. On Friday, he told reporters at a briefing that the refund process could be finished after he leaves the White House.

“I guess it has to get litigated for the next two years,” Trump said, later amending his timeline by saying: “We’ll end up being in court for the next five years.”

Boak writes for the Associated Press.

Feb. 23 (UPI) — A meeting on trade negotiations between the United States and India this week has been postponed in light of Friday’s Supreme Court ruling on President Donald Trump‘s tariffs.

Officials representing the United States and India were scheduled to meet for three days in Washington, D.C., to discuss their interim trade deal but the meeting has been delayed, CNBC, the BBC and Hindustan Times reported.

India’s top trade negotiator, Darpan Jain, was slated to travel to the United States for the meeting.

India is under a 25% reciprocal tariff imposed by the United States. It was expected to be reduced to 18% as part of an interim agreement between the countries earlier this month. The sides have continued to discuss future trade plans virtually since reaching the interim deal.

The United States and India were slated to finalize the interim agreement in March with it likely to go into effect in April. The framework for the agreement noted that any changes to the deal would allow the other country to “modify its commitments.”

On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Trump improperly applied the Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose a swath of tariffs. With those tariffs ruled unlawful, Trump announced a 15% global tariff, citing Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows a president to impose temporary tariffs.

The act allows for the president to impose tariffs of up to 15% for 150 days.

The Trump administration continues to consider new plans to continue with its tariff policy, exploring other legal routes, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in a social media post.

“We will immediately shift to other proven authorities — Actions 232, 301, and 122 — to keep our tariff strategy strong,” Bessent wrote.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court agreed Monday to decide on shielding energy producers from dozens of lawsuits seeking to hold them liable for costs of global climate change.

In the past decade, dozens of cities, counties and states, including California, have joined state-based lawsuits that seek billions of dollars in damages, and they have won preliminary victories in state courts.

But the Trump administration and the energy producers urged the Supreme Court to throw out all of these suits on the grounds they conflict with federal law.

“Boulder Colorado cannot make energy policy for the entire country,” lawyers for Suncor Energy and Exxon Mobil said in their appeal. They urged the court to rule that “state law cannot impose the costs of global climate change on a subset of the world’s energy producers chosen by a single municipality.”

The justices will hear the case of Suncor Energy vs. Boulder County, but arguments will not be held until October.

The Biden administration had said the justices should stand aside while the lawsuits move forward in state courts, but the Trump administration filed a brief in September urging the court to intervene now.

They said the case has “vast nationwide significance,” and it should not be left to be decided state by state.

Lawyers for Boulder had urged the court against taking up the issue at an early stage of the litigation. “This is not the right time or the right case for deciding” whether municipalities can sue over the damage they have suffered.

But after weighing the issue for weeks, the court announced it will be hear the claims of the oil and gas industries.

United States President Donald Trump has doubled down on his new global tariffs, raising them from 10 to 15 percent, days after the Supreme Court struck down his sweeping levies on imports.

The move on Saturday came as businesses and governments around the world sought repayment for the estimated $133bn that Washington has already collected.

In a post on his Truth Social platform, Trump announced the raise “effective immediately” and said the move was based on a review of the “ridiculous, poorly written and extraordinarily anti-American decision” issued by the Supreme Court on Friday.

By a six-to-three vote, the court had ruled that it was unconstitutional for Trump to unilaterally set and change tariffs, because the power to tax lies with the US Congress.

The court’s decision struck down tariffs that Trump had imposed on nearly every country using an emergency powers law, known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

Trump railed against the majority justices as “fools and lapdogs” in a news conference after the ruling, calling them an “embarrassment to their families”. He quickly signed an executive order – resting on a different statute, Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 – to impose the blanket 10 percent tariff, starting on Tuesday.

The 15 percent hike announced on Saturday is the highest rate allowed under that law.

However, those tariffs are limited to 150 days unless they are extended by Congress. No president has previously invoked Section 122, and its use could lead to further legal challenges.

It was not immediately clear whether an updated executive order was forthcoming.

The White House said the Section 122 tariffs include exemptions for certain products, including critical minerals, metals and energy products, according to the Reuters news agency.

Lawsuits

Trump wrote on Saturday that his administration will continue to work on issuing other permissible tariffs.

“During the next short number of months, the Trump Administration will determine and issue the new and legally permissible Tariffs, which will continue our extraordinarily successful process of Making America Great Again,” he said.

The president has already said his administration intends to rely on two other statutes that permit import taxes on specific products or countries based on investigations into national ‌security or unfair trade practices.

Tariffs have been central to Trump’s economic agenda, which he has used as a tool to address a range of goals – from reviving domestic manufacturing to pressuring other nations to crack down on drug trafficking, and pushing warring countries toward peace.

He has also wielded tariffs, or the threat of them, as leverage to extract trade concessions from foreign governments.

Federal data shows the US Treasury had collected more than $133bn from the import taxes the president has imposed under the emergency powers law as of December.

Since the Supreme Court’s ruling, more than a thousand lawsuits have been filed by importers in the US to seek refunds, and more cases are on the way.

While legally sound, the path forward for such claims is not straightforward, especially for smaller firms, said John Diamond, director of the Center for Tax and Budget Policy at Rice University.

“It’s pretty clear that they will win in court, but it’ll take some time,” Diamond said. “Once we get the court orders in effect, I don’t think those refunds will be all that messy for larger firms. Smaller firms are going to have a much more difficult time getting through the process.”

But foreign governments are managing “the real mess”, Diamond said.

“What do you do if you’re Taiwan, or Great Britain, and you have this existing trade deal, but now it’s kind of been turned upside down?”

The US-Taiwan trade deal lowers the general tariff on Taiwanese goods from 20 percent to 15 percent, the same level as Asian trade partners South Korea and Japan, in exchange for Taipei agreeing to buy about $85bn of US energy, aircraft and equipment.

The US-United Kingdom deal imposes a 10 percent tariff on imports of most UK goods, and reduces higher tariffs on imports of UK cars, steel and aluminium.

‘Pickpocketing the American people’

After ⁠the Supreme Court’s decision, Trump’s trade representative, Jamieson Greer, told Fox News on Friday that those countries must honour their agreements ⁠even if they call for higher rates than the Section 122 tariffs.

Exports to the US from countries such as Malaysia and Cambodia would continue to be taxed at their negotiated rates of 19 percent, even though the universal rate is lower, Greer said.

Indonesia’s chief negotiator for US tariffs, Airlangga Hartarto, said the trade deal between the countries that set US tariffs at 19 percent, which was signed on Friday, remains in force despite the court decision.

The ‌ruling could spell good news for countries like Brazil, which has not negotiated a deal with Washington to lower its 40 percent tariff rate but could now see its tariff rate drop to 15 percent, at least temporarily.

Governments around the world have reacted to the Supreme Court decision – as well as Trump’s subsequent tariff announcement – with a mix of cautious optimism, trepidation and frustration.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said he would coordinate a joint European stance before talks with Trump in early March, while Hong Kong’s secretary for financial services and the Treasury, Christopher Hiu, described the situation surrounding Trump’s new tariff moves as a “fiasco”.

With the November midterm elections in the US looming, Trump’s approval rating on his handling of the economy has steadily declined during his year in office.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll that closed on Monday showed 34 percent of ‌respondents ‌saying they approved of Trump’s handling of the economy, while 57 percent said they did not approve.

Democrats, who need to flip only three Republican-held seats in the US House of Representatives in November to win a majority, have blamed Trump’s tariffs for exacerbating the rising cost of living.

They were quick to condemn Trump’s new tariff threat on Saturday.

Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee accused Trump of “pickpocketing the American people” with his newly announced higher tariff.

“A little over 24 hours after his tariffs were ruled illegal, he’s doing anything he can to make sure he can still jack up your costs,” they wrote on social media.

California Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom, a Trump nemesis, added that “he [Trump] does not care about you”.

WASHINGTON — For a few hours on Friday, congressional Republicans seemed to get some relief from one of the largest points of friction they have had with the Trump administration. It didn’t last.

The Supreme Court struck down a significant portion of President Trump’s global tariff regime, ruling that the power to impose taxes lies with Congress. Many Republicans greeted the Friday morning decision with measured statements, some even praising it, and GOP leaders said they would work with Trump on tariffs going forward.

But by the afternoon, the president made clear he had no intention of working with Congress and would continue to go it alone by imposing a new global import tax. He set the new tax at 10% in an executive order, announcing Saturday he planned to hike it to 15%.

Trump is enacting the new tariff under a law that restricts the import taxes to 150 days and has never been invoked this way before. Though that decision is likely to have major implications for the global economy, it might also ensure that Republicans will have to keep answering for Trump’s tariffs for months to come, especially as the midterm elections near. Opinion polls have shown most Americans oppose Trump’s tariff policy.

“I have the right to do tariffs, and I’ve always had the right to do tariffs,” Trump said at a news conference Friday, contending that he doesn’t need Congress’ approval.

Tariffs have been one of the only areas where the Republican-controlled Congress has broken with Trump. Both the House and Senate at various points had passed resolutions intended to rein in the tariffs imposed on key trade partners such as Canada. It’s also one of the few issues about which Republican lawmakers, who came of age in a party that largely championed free trade, have voiced criticism of Trump’s economic policies.

“The empty merits of sweeping trade wars with America’s friends were evident long before today’s decision,” Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), the former longtime Senate Republican leader, said in a statement Friday, noting that tariffs raise the prices of homes and disrupt other industries important to his home state.

Democrats’ approach

Democrats, looking to win back control of Congress, intend to make McConnell’s point their own. At a news conference Friday, Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said Trump’s new tariffs “will still raise people’s costs and they will hurt the American people as much as his old tariffs did.”

Schumer challenged Republicans to stop Trump from imposing the new global tariff. Democrats on Friday also called for refunds to be sent to U.S. consumers for the tariffs struck down by the Supreme Court.

“The American people paid for these tariffs and the American people should get their money back,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said on social media.

The remarks underscored one of the Democrats’ central messages for the midterm campaign: that Trump has failed to make the cost of living more affordable and has inflamed prices with tariffs.

Small and midsize U.S. businesses have had to absorb the import taxes by passing them along to customers in the form of higher prices, employing fewer workers or accepting lower profits, according to an analysis by the JPMorganChase Institute.

Will Congress act?

The Supreme Court decision Friday made it clear that a majority of justices believe that Congress alone is granted authority under the Constitution to levy tariffs. Yet Trump quickly signed an executive order citing the Trade Act of 1974, which grants the president the power to impose temporary import taxes when there are “large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits” or other international payment problems.

The law limits the tax to 150 days without congressional approval to extend it. The authority has never been used and therefore never tested in court.

Republicans at times have warned Trump about the potential economic fallout of his tariff plans. Yet before his “Liberation Day” of global tariffs last April, GOP congressional leaders declined to directly defy the president.

Some GOP lawmakers cheered on the new tariff policy, highlighting a generational divide among Republicans, with a mostly younger group fiercely backing Trump’s strategy. Rather than heed traditional free trade doctrine, they argue for “America First” protectionism, which they argue will revive U.S. manufacturing.

Republican Sen. Bernie Moreno, an Ohio freshman, slammed the Supreme Court’s ruling on Friday and called for GOP lawmakers to “codify the tariffs that had made our country the hottest country on Earth!”

A few Republican opponents of the tariffs, meanwhile, openly cheered the Supreme Court’s decision. Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), a critic of the administration who is not seeking reelection, said on social media that “Congress must stand on its own two feet, take tough votes and defend its authorities.”

Bacon predicted there would be more Republican resistance coming. He and a few other GOP members were instrumental this month in forcing a House vote on Trump’s tariffs on Canada. As that measure passed, Trump vowed political retribution for any Republican who voted to oppose his tariff plans.

Groves writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Matt Brown, Joey Cappelletti and Lisa Mascaro contributed to this report.