The Tea, Spilled by Morning Joe: ‘There, deliberation tempers impulse’

This is the Feb. 23, 2026, edition of “The Tea, Spilled by Morning Joe” newsletter. Subscribe here to get it delivered straight to your inbox Monday through Friday.

“The deliberative nature of the legislative process was the whole point of its design. Through that process, the Nation can tap the combined wisdom of the people’s elected representatives, not just that of one faction or man. There, deliberation tempers impulse, and compromise hammers disagreements into workable solutions.”

— Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch’s concurrence in last week’s tariff ruling

ON THIS DATE

On Feb. 23, 1945, U.S. soldiers raised the flag atop Mount Suribachi at Iwo Jima, one of the bloodiest battles of the Pacific in World War II.

A CONVERSATION WITH NEAL KATYAL

The Supreme Court dealt President Donald Trump a 6-3 defeat on Friday, striking down his sweeping global tariffs in a ruling with major implications for presidential power. Neal Katyal — the Georgetown Law professor and former acting solicitor general who argued the case — joined “Morning Joe” to break down what the decision means and why refunds may be on the way.

JS: You’ve said this decision is bigger than just tariffs. How so? 

NK: At its core, our argument was simple: When it comes to a momentous decision over taxing the American people, it cannot be made by one man alone. That’s a core constitutional principle, and that’s what 6 of the 9 justices affirmed. 

JS: What was your biggest surprise from the opinion?

NK: Honestly, I wasn’t surprised. I told my clients — these brave small businesses that stood up when everyone else was afraid of retaliation — that it would be 6 to 3 in exactly this lineup. 

If there was a surprise, it was that I always hold out hope for all nine justices to speak unanimously — for all nine to sign on to an opinion saying the president went way beyond the constitutional lines. They didn’t.

JS: How will historians look back on this moment? 

NK: I read the decision as less about President Trump specifically and more about the presidency — less about the politics of the moment, and more about the role of the Supreme Court in our constitutional system. Go back over American history, and you find almost no examples of the court striking down a president’s core initiatives. And here, the court said: No matter that tradition of deference, you went too far. 

MB: What does this mean for families and businesses that paid these tariffs — are they getting their money back? 

NK: We believe so, and we are launching a task force today to fight for exactly that. The federal government is already saying they’ll try to keep this money — we think that’s unconstitutional and wrong. Donald Trump’s own Justice Department told the courts: If the challengers win, we’ll give the money back. They made that promise, and we are going to hold them to it.

JL: Within hours of the ruling, the president announced a new 10% global tariff — then raised it to 15%. Does he have the constitutional authority to do that? 

NK: His main play is Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act, which allows a 15% tariff — but only for 150 days. Here’s the problem: His own Justice Department filed briefs to the Supreme Court saying Section 122 is inapplicable and the president can’t use it. He’s now reversed course completely, and will have to argue against his own Justice Department’s interpretation of the law. That’s a tough sell. 

This conversation has been condensed and edited for brevity and clarity.

EXTRA HOT TEA

ONE MORE SHOT

Bai Yu/CHINASPORTS/VCG via Getty Images

The Olympic flame burns one last time at the closing ceremony of the Milan Cortina 2026 Winter Games, where Norway won the most medals, followed by the United States. 

CATCH UP ON MORNING JOE