This is John Bachelor. I welcome John Yu, Professor John Yu of the Civitas Institute, the University of Texas at Austin,

as well as Berkeley Law School, to comment on the most recent major decision made by the Supreme Court

to do with the politics of the moments, tariffs. This is called Learning Resources, and Learning

Resources has a decision that breaks down into so many different pieces.

I need the professors help.

The overall headline was, 6 to 3, the Roberts Court rejects the Trump administration's interpretation of a 1977 law passed during Jimmy Carter's troubled presidency called

AEPA. That is a acronym for a long and complicated version of tariffs, International

Emergency Economic Powers Act. Professor, a very good evening to you. As I understand it, the six to three majority

holds that the Trump administration was incorrect in using EPA for its ambition to regulate

or to administer or to negotiate tariffs with other sovereign states, chiefly bilaterally, but there are some

grouping as well. But in that rejection, there were different opinions of yea and nay.

So overall, to understand how the court works, that is longstanding a puzzle about how to interpret court decisions.

People say yes, but in different directions.

Does that have any meaning for the court going forward, given that it likes precedent?

That I say yes, but it's qualified this way. He says yes, but it's

qualified that way. Good evening to you, John. John, exactly right. One is that the court did

strike down President Trump's worldwide tariffs by a six to three vote. But you're really good

at counting the noses, John, because how you find out

which six justices agreed on which parts of the opinion is hard and takes time. And maybe

you need a law degree in order to do it. It's a most unusual gathering of justices. You have

three conservative justices, Chief Justice Roberts, who wrote the opinion,

Justice Gorsuch, Justice Barrett, voting to strike down the tariffs. And then you had the three

...