How should the Supreme Court handle the legality of President Trump’s reciprocal tariff plan?

Uphold it as is (19%) – "He’s wielding power to make trade fairer for the US, something Congress fails to do because of corporate lobbyists. Once trade balance is restored it will be a nonissue. Plus he funded SNAP with tariff revenue when congress refuses to open the govt so who needs them."

• "Trump is the first president in my lifetime to understand that the USA needs to negotiate with other nations, and not just open up the checkbook for them and give away the store. I feel like we finally have a business mind in the White House, and he's guiding our nation in business matters that others before him have failed to understand and manage. Tariffs have proven to be a useful tool to engage other nations in serious talks about a range of issues key to USA economic, strategic and military matters. Trump has brought nearly every nation that matters to the table to negotiate what makes the most sense for both the USA and the other nations. Clearly we must reduce our national debt, and there are but two ways to do that, increase revenue and decrease costs. Trump has done both by increasing our tariffs on other nations who have been dumping cheap goods on us and taking American jobs, and by negotiating lower tariffs on our exports. Tariffs were once a key source of income for our country, before the federal income tax was imposed in 1913 after passage of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution. Since then tariffs had largely taken a back seat as principal revenue source. It's time to restore this power to the presidency, and minimize the need for a slow-moving, contentious Congress to take the quick actions often needed to manage world affairs."

Uphold it with small changes (13%) – "I would uphold it with small changes such as always allowing reciprocal tariffs and 'punishing' tariffs harming national security such as drug smuggling from offending countries and also, supply chains of essential goods that should be manufactured here. Many of these tariffs are, in my opinion, also bargaining chips for foreign policy which should be allowed. Tariffs levied, or not levied, by incompetent administrations (like Biden's) could be challenged by Congress via a special legal process showing verifiable harm over verifiable good."

Strike it down entirely (63%) – "I would uphold it with small changes such as always allowing reciprocal tariffs and 'punishing' tariffs harming national security such as drug smuggling from offending countries and also, supply chains of essential goods that should be manufactured here. Many of these tariffs are, in my opinion, also bargaining chips for foreign policy which should be allowed. Tariffs levied, or not levied, by incompetent administrations (like Biden's) could be challenged by Congress via a special legal process showing verifiable harm over verifiable good."

• "Trump’s “America First” argument would carry more weight if he wasn’t using tariffs as a Politi­­cal bludgeon: Brazil (50% import duty over Bolsonaro’s trial), Canada/Mexico (tariffs tied to immigration, fentanyl), and India (50% duties over defense/BRICS alignment). He also uses tariffs are to punish political actions, not protect American jobs. It’s power, not principles, driving his policies."

"Trump’s tariffs have been disruptive to the economy. It allows him a power advantage over other countries and a way to bring revenue directly to the Executive Branch that he can decide how to spend without going through Congress. We need to involve more people with setting policies for tariffs, which have such an impact on our economy and jobs."

• "Sure, striking down the policies will cause instability. The last ten months have upended a great deal of the trade and political networks of the entire planet, so that can't be a significant concern for the administration. In the longterm, I'd rather suffer a little more now, as a citizen and taxpayer, than let this administration undermine our political system in such a critical way that one of the three pillars of a checked and balanced society can no longer act as such. The office of president MUST be constrained by congress or it is a monarchy under the veneer of a republic. I don't want, in twenty years, to look back at this decision and be able to identify it as the moment that all restraint fell away."

"Congress should be approving tariffs. The office of the president is gaining far too much power under Trump. Our founding fathers made it clear as written in the constitution that we have three equal branches at our highest level of government, being legislative, executive and judicial. They were put in place to keep each branch “in check” and none of them to hold more power than the other two. During this administration the executive branch is disregarding this balance for their own agendas and setting a dangerous precedent for our future as a nation. These executive administration actions cannot be allowed to continue."

• "I fear further expansion of Presidential power that would bypass the congressional and judicial checks and balances of our system. Upholding tariffs would further embolden this and future presidents to enact procedures on a whim, for revenge or personal enrichment."

Unsure/other (5%) – "I actually think the Supreme Court should apply the law to it and either uphold or strike it down according to how the law is written. Anything other than that is creating law from the bench which has to stop. It is that simple."