The Supreme Court handed President Donald Trump two of the biggest legal defeats of his second term, and he isn’t staying quiet about it.
Trump took to Truth Social to put a price tag on what those rulings actually cost the country.
And the figure he named will leave a lot of Americans wondering who exactly the nine justices are working for.
Trump Names the Number Nobody in Washington Wants to Say Out Loud
“Does anybody have any idea how much Money and Prestige the United States Supreme Court has cost our Nation with their negative Rulings on Birthright Citizenship and TARIFFS? The answer, TRILLIONS AND TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post.
That’s not rhetorical bluster from a man who likes big numbers. There’s real money attached to both of these decisions, and the paper trail is getting longer by the week.
In February, the Supreme Court found that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the unilateral imposition of global tariffs by the President, striking down previous tariffs and dealing a blow to the administration’s economic agenda.
The ruling required the Trump administration to provide restitution to firms that paid higher prices for imported goods, while the President leaned on different statutes to impose other levies. As of late June, US Customs and Border Protection had issued roughly $104.29 billion in refunds, according to a court filing.
That’s over $104 billion out the door, and the process isn’t finished.
Based on calculations of the total amount owed as of late June, the government still owes importers about $100.65 billion — more than half of the total owed.
And that’s just the tariff side of the ledger.
The justices also invalidated Trump’s order requiring a baby born on US soil to have at least one parent with citizenship or permanent legal status to gain birthright citizenship.
It was the second time in four months that the court handed Trump a defining defeat in a 6-3 split. And on both occasions, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion.
The Justices Trump Put on the Bench Sided Against Him
Here’s the part that stings the most for Trump’s supporters.
The court carries a 6-3 conservative majority that includes three justices Trump personally nominated: Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett.
Gorsuch, Barrett, and Chief Justice John Roberts ruled with liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson on the tariff ruling — meaning Trump’s own picks provided the decisive votes against him.
The President singled out Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, whom he nominated during his first term, writing that “They were appointed by me, and yet have hurt our Country so badly.”
Trump said, referring to Justices Gorsuch and Barrett, “I think it’s an embarrassment to their families, you wanna know the truth, the two of them.” He added, “I’m ashamed of certain members of the court — absolutely ashamed — for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country.”
Trump did make clear who he was not upset with.
“I’d like to thank and congratulate Justices [Clarence] Thomas, [Samuel] Alito, and [Brett] Kavanaugh for their strength and wisdom and love of our country, which is, right now, very proud of those justices,” Trump said.
Kavanaugh’s position on the birthright ruling was more complicated than a straight no vote.
“In my view, the executive order does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment,” Kavanaugh wrote in his partial dissent. Congress could, Kavanaugh wrote, try to “enact new legislation establishing exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country.”
That’s a meaningful distinction — Kavanaugh left a door open that the majority slammed shut.
What This Really Means for the America First Agenda
The birthright citizenship question isn’t a procedural footnote. It goes straight to the heart of a policy that millions of Americans have wanted fixed for decades.
The 14th Amendment was written to guarantee citizenship to the children of freed slaves following the Civil War — not to create a system where foreign nationals fly to the United States specifically to give birth so their child gets an American passport. That practice, often called birth tourism, is a scam that no serious developed nation in the world operates the same way, and the court just told Trump he can’t fix it with an executive order.
The court rejected President Trump’s executive order ending citizenship at birth for those born on US soil, ruling that the executive order ran foul of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which has long been interpreted to bestow birthright citizenship on almost anyone born in the United States.
Trump reacted to the decision by suggesting that Congress could pass a law to end birthright citizenship. That’s the path Kavanaugh’s partial dissent pointed toward, and it may be the only one left.
On the tariff front, Trump has already found workarounds. The IEEPA ruling struck down tariffs imposed under emergency powers, but the administration has leaned on other statutes to keep trade pressure in place. The refund bill, though, is real and it’s enormous.
The President has argued that the Supreme Court’s ruling will benefit US adversaries, notably Russia and China. That’s a serious charge — and it’s one worth sitting with. When the court strips the executive branch of a trade tool and forces a $100 billion-plus payout, the countries that benefit most are the ones that were subject to those tariffs in the first place.
The permanent Washington establishment has spent years insisting that the courts are neutral arbiters, above politics, beyond reproach. But when justices appointed by a Republican President join the liberal bloc to gut that same President’s economic and immigration agenda twice in four months, ordinary Americans are entitled to ask what’s really going on. Trump is asking that question out loud, and his frustration is entirely understandable.
The question now is whether Congress has the spine to act where the court refused to. On birthright citizenship, Kavanaugh’s partial dissent handed lawmakers a road map. Whether they use it is another matter entirely.
Sources: Mediaite, Fox News, The Hill, OAN, IBTimes UK, Cato Institute, Penn Wharton Budget Model, Migration Policy Institute