Do you agree or disagree with SCOTUS’ decision to strike down the vast majority of President Trump’s tariff agenda?

Agree (77%) – "The Constitution grants that authority to Congress. The correct procedure would be for the President to request that Congress raise or lower tariffs and present his case for doing so. Because tariffs are a matter of both international trade and diplomacy, trade policy should be carefully developed by experts and negotiated as business contracts, binding over a period of years - and not based on the whims of one person or used as an intimidation tactic."

• "Separation of powers exists for a reason, and regardless of the merits of tariffs on the whole, Trump simply does not have the power to impose them under the laws he claimed so it was a clear cut decision by the court."

"I’m a conservative, especially from a fiscal standpoint. I support much of the current administration’s policies, but found the tariffs unsettling. The Supreme Court did its job and I respect that. You can’t appreciate and respect the balance of power within the Constitution if you only do so when it favors one side."

• "The balance of powers is stipulated in the US Constitution to avoid any power to become too powerful, and the rule of law must be obeyed. Moreover, the US consumers were the ones affected the most by the imposition of tariffs."

"There was no precedent for the tariffs. It is a bad use of a law that is supposed to help buffer the US during perilous financial times, as it was used to bully other countries. The US was already attempting to gain some footing over our debt, but with this and other acts (including the many attempts of trying to increase inflation in the past year) it has only ballooned it."

• "The world's #1 economy isn't, cannot be in a state of emergency. I cannot fathom the IEEPA was established to be used as an everyday tool for filling the national coffers."

"I agree because it reinforces constitutional limits. Tariffs are fundamentally taxes, and under the constitution Congress, not the president, controls taxation, and trade. This ruling will reinforce separation of powers and prevent future presidents of either party from using emergency powers too broadly. It will also reduce consumer costs and reduce inflation pressure & will help global trade stability reducing trade retaliation from allies, which will improve relations with trading partners."

• "Trump shouldn't have messed with the tariff taxes without consulting the experts. This is just like the mess made by Musk and the immigration deportation without consulting experts as to the effects they would cause."

Disagree (17%) – "As Congress did not disagree with the tariff imposition then I would take that, in this case, as approval for the reasons the President stated. Perhaps, after responding to the emergency, the president should be required to give Congress concrete reasoning which they should then be able to deny. Thus sidestepping the need to refund the tariffs already collected."

• "We should not be letting other nations rip us off by putting big tariffs on us. Also, the Courts cutting tariffs of will lead to businesses moving back out of the United States again."

Unsure/other (6%) – "Tariffs are an extremely complicated topic. From an economic perspective, short term pain may be worth the long term benefits for our country but we all know that the only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable. On the other hand, the Supreme Court's job is not mainly to determine the wisdom of the tariffs but rather the legality of the tariffs - and in this case, I really appreciate the opinions of both the majority and minority of the court. While I think at the end of the day I agree with the majority opinion, a quick look at the actual court decision (a mere 170 pages that I did not do more than skim through the headings) will show anyone that both sides are immensely more complicated than we would like to assume based on headlines and summaries."