'Ridiculous': Observers slam Supreme Court for justifying Trump's 'complete mess'

Supreme Court watchers slammed Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Samuel Alito on Wednesday for appearing to spend some of their time during the oral arguments over tariffs trying to change the discussion to address something else entirely.

Barrett pivoted a long debate to discuss the "mess" that would result if the high court agreed that President Donald Trump doesn't have the legal authority to impose tariffs; only Congress does.

Trump used the 1970s International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to claim that the U.S. economy was so dire that it had become a national emergency and warranted his takeover of trade.

"If you win, tell me how the reimbursement process would work. Would it be a complete mess?" asked Barrett.

The theory is that because Trump acted unlawfully, the U.S. government would be forced to reimburse those subject to tariffs. There are already lawsuits by companies ready to sue the government over the mere idea that the tariffs may have been enacted in violation of the Constitution.

Barrett thinks it could be a problem.

Though, as economic historian Phil Magness commented, Trump's administration "already conceded it could meet that remedy." He wasn't happy with the answer from Neal Katyal, who he said, gave "them a way to split the baby by only restricting tariffs prospectively from now going forward."

"Just my opinion but I don't think SCOTUS will address repayment even if it rules anti-tariffs. I think it would kick that to a lower court," said columnist and former journalist W. Blake Gray.

At one point, Alito made a snarky comment to Katyal, turning some heads.

"Mr. Katyal, did you ever think your legacy as a constitutional lawyer would be reviving the nondelegation doctrine?" Alito asked.

One individual translated it to mean: “Obviously, the President’s position is ridiculous, so let’s argue something else and use that as justification for agreeing with the President’s ridiculous argument.”