• The Supreme Court heard arguments over Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs
• A majority of justices expressed skepticism that an emergency law allows Trump to impose tariffs
• Trump appointee Neil Gorsuch said taxes should be treated carefully.

At Wednesday’s hearing on the legality of President Donald Trump’s tariffs, the Supreme Court grappled with a central question: Is this too much power for a president to have on his own?

The justices heard arguments over the “Liberation Day” tariffs Trump imposed on the rest of the world, as well as the other tariffs he justified under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

IEEPA gives presidents the power to “regulate” importation in times of emergency. According to the Trump administration, that includes the ability to impose taxes on imported goods — a power no previous president has ever claimed from the Carter-era law.

During Wednesday’s arguments, the justices questioned whether the issue should be considered under the “major questions doctrine” — the legal principle that says Congress needs to be crystal-clear when granting presidents power over matters of significant economic or political importance.

A majority of the nine justices asked pointed questions to Solicitor General D. John Sauer, who represented the Trump administration.

Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, both appointed by Trump in his first term, pressed back on the administration’s arguments that it could assume so much power from the law’s language.

Barrett pushed Sauer to point to any “any other time in history” where “regulate importation” meant the power to impose tariffs.

When Sauer pointed to an appellate court decision in a different case and delved into the “long historical pedigree” of how authority is delegated from Congress to the executive branch, Barrett appeared unsatisfied.

“Could you just answer the justice’s question?” Justice Sonia Sotomayor cut in.

The three justices appointed by Democratic presidents appeared flatly opposed to the notion that “regulate importation” covers tariffs at all.

Sotomayor agreed with the lawyers for companies that opposed the tariffs, pointing out that Congress has been clear about taxation and tariff powers in other laws.

“It’s a congressional power, not a presidential power, to tax,” Sotomayor said while grilling Sauer. “And you want to say tariffs are not our taxes, but that’s exactly what they are. It’s generating money from American citizens — revenue.”

Justice Neil Gorsuch, who Trump appointed in his first presidential term, and Chief Justice John Roberts also expressed concerns.

Tariffs and taxes, Gorsuch said, should be treated with special care. They were “part of the spark of the American Revolution,” he said. If the Supreme Court allowed presidents to have broad taxing powers on their own, he said, Congress would “never get that power back.”

“The power to reach into the pockets of the American people is just different,” Gorsuch said. “And it’s been different since the founding.”

Tariffs are at the center of Trump’s economic policies

The Supreme Court is weighing whether IEEPA gives presidents the power to impose tariffs at all and, if they do, whether that violates the Constitution’s separation of powers.

The case — which the Supreme Court put on the fast track — has high stakes for the Trump administration’s economic policies. He has used tariffs as his most potent weapon while negotiating trade deals with other countries. The Supreme Court could potentially issue a ruling in a matter of weeks.

Wednesday’s hearing combined two cases brought by two different groups of companies that filed lawsuits seeking to block the tariffs brought under IEEPA, which are by far the most sweeping of the tariffs Trump imposed.

Trump has also issued tariffs using other laws, which he could continue to do if the Supreme Court rules against him.

But those non-IEEPA tariffs have more stringent limits, like built-in expiration dates, caps on how high the tariffs can be, and less flexibility to impose them on imports from particular countries.

At Wednesday’s hearing, Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito appeared to take a broader view of a president’s power.

Those powers are at their height, Alito suggested, in national emergencies, which are exactly the types of scenarios that IEEPA was designed to address. And so it was no surprise, he said, that the law would give the president a lot of power in those situations.

“Isn’t it the very nature of an emergency provision that is going to be more open-ended?” Alito asked Neal Katyal, an attorney at Milbank representing the companies challenging the tariffs. He said Trump “has torn up the entire tariff architecture,” including by issuing tariffs on imports from allied countries with which the United States has a trade surplus, like Switzerland.

“That is just not something that any president has ever had the power to do in our history,” said Katyal, who served as Solicitor General during the Obama administration. “And the idea that Congress, by implication, did this in 1977 and handed him all this power — I think is really difficult.”

Some of the conservative justices, while skeptical that Trump could use IEEPA with tariffs, struggled to square that with the law allowing presidents to impose embargoes.

Barrett asked Oregon Solicitor General Benjamin Gutman — who represented a coalition of twelve states challenging the tariffs — why a president couldn’t use the “weaker medicine” of taxing imports if they were allowed to block trade altogether.

The discrepancy left an “odd doughnut hole” that would go against “common sense,” Kavanaugh said.

“With your interpretation, the president could shut down all trade with every other country in the world or impose some significant quota on imports from every other country in the world, but would not allow a 1% tariff,” Kavanaugh told Gutman.

Gutman said tariffing power was “a fundamentally different power” because it raised revenue, and the Constitution’s framers were particularly worried about “actions that bring in revenue from the pockets of taxpayers” like tariffs and taxes.

“It’s not a donut hole,” Gutman said. “It’s a different kind of pastry.”

Japan has long harvested a shrub called mitsumata for its money supply. But when mitsumata started dying out, Japan frantically searched for alternatives to make yen.

It found a lifeline in the foothills of the Himalayas. A low-value crop called argeli grew abundantly and served as a perfect replacement for mitsumata.

Argeli was worth very little, often the only option for farmers who’d lost their crops to wild animals. When the Japanese arrived, they turned the once low-value argeli into a cash crop.

Now, one of Asia’s poorest countries is growing the money for one of Asia’s richest nations. And the influx of cash brought industry and investment to Nepal’s small villages.

But while Japan loves its physical yen now, what will happen to Nepal’s new big business if the country goes cashless like the rest of Asia?

• Top US shipbuilder HII has been investing more in its workers.
• The company says that’s led to better hiring and retention of a more experienced workforce.
• Solving workforce problems is considered key to solving larger US shipbuilding issues.

US shipbuilder Huntington Ingalls Industries is putting more money into wages and a new workforce strategy, and it’s finding that it’s not only hiring more experienced workers but also retaining them, a top executive shared last week.

The company, the largest US warship builder, unveiled its new strategy for fixing shipbuilding workforce problems last year, and it’s now seeing positive signs that are making it “cautiously optimistic,” CEO Chris Kastner said.

During HII’s third-quarter earnings call, Kastner said that the Newport News shipyard in Virginia saw “an increase in experienced hires following the wage investment this summer and increased hiring from regional workforce development pipelines, which provides more proficient incoming shipbuilders,” calling the efforts “important steps to stabilize and level up the experience of our workforce.”

In February, a senior HII official lamented the loss of experienced workers as the shipbuilding industry hollowed out after the Cold War with decreased demand for the construction of ships at scale. They said worker experience for some jobs had dropped to a fraction of what it was in the mid-1990s.

Over 4,600 shipbuilders have been hired year-to-date, and retention rates at the Virginia yard and Ingalls in Mississippi have increased, the CEO said last week. More workers are also being hired from regional workforce development centers, apprenticeship schools, and dedicated high school programs as well.

HII said last fall that it was going to hire fewer green workers and instead increase wages to bring in and keep more experienced talent, and leadership has continued to emphasize that this year. Funding provided by Congress earlier this year to support the maritime industrial base has been fueling investments in workforce wages, as well as workforce support and technology modernization.

In March, Ronald O’Rourke, a naval affairs analyst with the Congressional Research Service, wrote in a background report for Congress that workforce problems were central factors to projected delays for US Navy shipbuilding projects.

These, he wrote, include “challenges in recruiting and retaining sufficient numbers of production workers at shipyards and supplier firms, lower productivity of newly hired workers compared with more experienced workers, and limited numbers of ship designers” like naval architects and marine engineers.

O’Rourke and other experts then told the House Armed Services Committee’s Seapower and Projection Forces subcommittee that addressing these issues was the first step to getting the Navy’s priority programs back on track.

At the time, the main solution brought up to address lingering problems was higher, more competitive wages that would increase interest in shipbuilding jobs, as well as improving the quality of life and working conditions in the yards.

HII’s pursuit of that approach has the company feeling “kind of cautiously optimistic and we hope to keep it going,” Kastner said.

• Sports fans who have YouTube TV are mad, since they don’t have access to ABC or ESPN.
• The two sides must agree on how much the Google-owned live TV service will pay.
• But sports leagues and even fans are partially responsible for blackouts like this.

Disney and YouTube TV are stuck in a stalemate over how much channels like ESPN are worth.

YouTube TV’s 10 million or so subscribers can’t watch ABC and ESPN until the two sides agree on a deal. Disney wants more money to support its heavy investments in a sports rights portfolio that includes the NFL, the NBA, college sports, and the NHL. YouTube is telling customers that paying higher rates would require it to raise prices for the second time in a year.

“It’s a tale as old as pay TV,” said Evan Shapiro, a media industry analyst.

Disney’s ESPN and Google’s YouTube TV have been cast as the villains in this story by some online commenters.

“It’s pretty tone-deaf to tell paying customers to ‘go fix’ something that’s entirely between two billion-dollar corporations,” said an X user in response to a post from ESPN’s Scott Van Pelt telling viewers to petition Google and YouTube TV about the blackout.

The reality is more complicated, as the leagues and even sports fans themselves bear some responsibility.

The case against Disney

There’s a reason media analysts think this standoff is more than a typical pay-TV squabble.

Disney now controls three alternatives to YouTube TV: Hulu + Live TV, Fubo, and the ESPN app (which can give consumers access to all of Disney’s sports content). Google’s position is that Disney can afford to hold out for higher rates since it could benefit if YouTube TV subscribers cancel.

“What’s changed in the landscape is Disney’s launch of the ESPN streaming service,” said Joseph Bonner, who covers Disney for Argus Research. “It’s logical to assume YouTube TV may be demanding some concessions from Disney, either on price or other issues.”

However, if Disney bends on price with YouTube TV, other pay-TV providers like Charter and Comcast could pressure it for similar terms. Plus, the company could find it tougher to maximize its investments in live sports, especially with leagues like the NBA, which it’s paying an average of $2.6 billion a year for the next 11 years.

YouTube TV is flexing its market power

Sports lovers who pay for YouTube TV are fed up with the blackout that’s keeping them from “Monday Night Football” and college football games, plus other games and shows on ESPN.

YouTube is motivated to keep its costs down to improve its bottom line. It can likely afford a tough fight since it’s backed by Google’s $3.4 trillion parent company, which has a long-term plan to be a go-to destination on TVs.

A Disney spokesperson previously said that “Google is using its market dominance to eliminate competition and undercut the industry-standard terms we’ve successfully negotiated with every other distributor.”

Media analysts say that’s not just a Disney talking point.

This Disney-YouTube TV blackout is “indicative of YouTube TV wielding increased bargaining power,” Ric Prentiss of Raymond James said in a note after Disney’s networks left the pay-TV service.

Leagues are squeezing media companies

Both Disney and YouTube are acting rationally, which is why some media analysts say fans may want to direct their anger elsewhere.

“The obvious ‘culprit’ for the rising sports rights costs are the leagues,” Argus’ Bonner said.

Sports rights have exploded in value in recent years. They’re seen as must-have programming for top media companies since they’re a proven way to attract and keep paying subscribers.

No movie, TV show, or podcast cuts through culture like sports can. In a divided US — both in politics and entertainment — sports unify as one of the last remnants of monoculture.

Advertisers also love live sports, and not just because they’re widely watched. Alan Wolk, who cofounded media research firm TVREV, said that sports are a way to reach audiences who rarely see ads, either because they pay to remove them when streaming or use ad blockers.

“It’s the only way in this fragmented universe that you can reach millions of people at the same time,” Wolk said of sports.

Sports have never been more valuable, and both league commissioners and franchise owners are capitalizing on their leverage.

“The leagues essentially have the distributors over a barrel, given the cable bundle landscape,” Bonner said.

Tech giants are pushing up prices

The entrance of deep-pocketed tech companies like Google, Amazon, and Apple into sports in recent years has been a big challenge for traditional media companies.

These disruptors have substantial financial firepower, and they don’t necessarily need their media businesses to be a source of profit. YouTube TV, Prime Video, and Apple TV also support their parent companies’ primary goals of selling ads, Prime subscriptions, and phones.

As cord-cutting ramps up, Shapiro said live sports are “all that broadcast has left.”

“I think the new F1 deal is a sign that the sports bubble will continue to inflate as long as Big Tech is in the game, ready to pay irrational prices,” Shapiro said.

Fans bear some responsibility as sports rights soar

The leagues aren’t entirely at fault, as they maximize the amount of money they make for their owners and players.

Ultimately, fans are partially responsible for the continued escalation of sports rights costs.

By being willing to pay steadily rising prices for access to games, fans are enabling leagues to extract more money from media companies, who in turn ask pay-TV providers for higher rates. So it shouldn’t be surprising when services like YouTube TV and Fubo ask customers to pay up.

Faced with surging streaming costs and the YouTube TV blackout, some sports fans have resorted to piracy. Others are simply watching highlights of the games for free on social media or the free version of YouTube when they’re over.

If sports remain the cornerstone of TV, fans shouldn’t be surprised to see more disputes like the one between Disney and YouTube TV flare up.

• I was working for my mom’s successful day care business when she died in 2019.
• The plan had always been for me to take over one day, but I decided to quit a year later.
• Though I’ve often wondered if it was the right choice, I choose to embrace my own path instead.

When my mom was diagnosed with her third bout of cancer in 2018, she asked me to come work for her day care business. Knowing she would be undergoing treatments and needed the help, I quit my job to become a manager at one of her four centers.

We had previously discussed my future involvement in the company and eventual takeover as director, so while her diagnosis hastened this plan, I felt like I was making the right decision at the time. With this plan, I could help her out while also transitioning into a leadership role.

My mom died in June 2019, about seven months after I started working for the company. Losing her was the hardest thing I’ve experienced, and I continue to miss her every day. Looking back, I see that working at her business complicated my grief. It was hard to imagine my future, personally and professionally, without my mom.

I decided to step away from the business

Working at the day care was emotionally challenging after my mom died. Constant reminders of her, like staff who talked about her or incoming mail with her name on it, triggered my emotions nearly daily. Also challenging were the usual stressors of managing a large facility while navigating the dynamics with my mom’s business partner to create a seamless handover plan.

I had envisioned taking over with my mom’s mentorship, but now I was doing it without her. I was 28 at the time and didn’t know if I could commit long-term to this business, especially in the middle of my complex, overwhelming emotions.

Between my grief, overwhelm with the job, and uncertainty about future management, I made a tough decision to quit and step away from the business just over a year after my mom died.

I told my mom’s business partner and my dad — who was acting co-director at the time — about my decision. Without me stepping in, and because the other director did not want to manage the entire company herself, we ended up selling the company that my mom and her partner had built and run for 12 years.

I’ve often wondered if I made the right decision

I’ve thought about the day care a lot in the six years since my mom passed. She, with her business partner, built it from the ground up, and we were all proud of her for it. It was thriving and provided a good income. It also provided hundreds of families with a safe and joyful place for their children to grow and learn.

If I had continued, I would likely be working as a director there today, earning a higher salary than I do now and making a positive impact on the community.

Knowing this, I often wonder if I made the right decision. The same questions repeat in my head: Was I crazy to give up that opportunity? I could have had a meaningful job, I could have carried on Mom’s legacy. What would she think?

I’m no longer living in regret

At times, I can get caught up in all of the “what if” questions and the feelings of regret over what could have been.

Through reflection, therapy, and time, I’ve realized those questions aren’t helpful. I thought about it carefully, considered my options, and made the best decision I could at that time. It’s all any of us can do.

In deciding to step away from that path, I’ve forged a new one instead. I’m now self-employed as a freelance writer, something I’ve never thought I’d do. My flexible schedule has allowed me to travel and prioritize things that are important to me.

I’m doing well and am hopeful about the future. Whenever those regrets or questions set in, I remind myself of this simple truth: My mom would be happy that I’m happy, and that’s enough.

• Noura Sakkijha said Mejuri has introduced a new metal to cope with gold’s soaring costs.
• Mejuri’s direct-to-consumer model has helped it stay nimble, she said.
• The Canadian brand has also reallocated some production plans to respond to tariffs.

Among the many who have tracked gold’s stunning rally this year, Noura Sakkijha has an especially personal — and economic stake — in the game.

As the cofounder and CEO of the jewelry brand Mejuri, Sakkijha said that the company’s direct-to-consumer model has helped it stay nimble amid soaring gold prices, in part by offering customers an entirely new material. Investors have flocked to gold, driving its price up by more than 50% this year. Prices of the safe-haven asset hit a record of nearly $4,400 per ounce in October, before falling sharply and settling to around $4,000 per ounce. Silver prices have also gone up and reached an all-time high last month.

“You’re operating at a completely different cost for all fine jewelry brands,” Sakkijha told Business Insider. Coming from a family of jewelers, Sakkijha said maintaining accessible pricing is important.

With its direct-to-consumer model, Mejuri works with manufacturers and sells jewelry straight to consumers, which Sakkijha said has come in “very, very handy right now, because what you need is agility.” The brand — popular on social media and known for accessible luxury, like classic chain necklaces that cost a few hundred dollars — can more easily adjust its prices, she said.

Mejuri has introduced 10-karat gold, in addition to its typical 14-karat gold, silver, and vermeil, which is gold-plated jewelry. Sakkijha also said Mejuri has started offering some products in vermeil that it used to only sell in 14-karat gold.

The metals make a big price difference — for example, Mejuri’s “bold huggie hoops” cost $268 in 14-karat gold, $198 in 10-karat gold, $78 in sterling silver, and $78 in vermeil.

“The goal for us is to make sure that we always have well-designed products that are very well made at great prices,” Sakkijha said.

Sakkijha estimated that Mejuri has raised prices by less than 10% across collections in the past year, in part to cope with changing material costs. The price change varies by item, the company told Business Insider, meaning some have seen a larger increase.

Mejuri is based in Canada, but Sakkijha said that the majority of its market is in the US, meaning she’s had to react to tariffs and trade tensions quickly. Mejuri manufactures globally, and Sakkijha said they’ve adjusted some production plans in response to evolving tariffs.

Though the skyrocketing gold prices are far from ideal, Sakkijha said Mejuri is in a good spot, since it’s known for dainty jewelry that uses less material.

“We design into these price points that we know are very important to our customers,” she said.