So here's a fun constitutional law question for your next dinner party: who gets to set tariffs? According to former Vice President Mike Pence, the answer is Congress, full stop. And he's pretty happy the Supreme Court just agreed with him.

Pence recently praised a Supreme Court ruling that blocked former President Donald Trump's tariff policy, calling it a reinforcement of constitutional limits. In remarks posted by C-SPAN, Pence said he "strongly and heartily" welcomed the decision. His take? The Constitution's Article I is quite clear that authority over taxes and tariffs originates with Congress, and using broad executive authority for them raises serious concerns about overreach.

Think of it as a civics lesson with real-world stakes. Pence argued the ruling protects the separation of powers—that classic system where Congress makes the laws, the President executes them, and the courts interpret them. He also said it provides some much-needed relief to businesses and workers who've been navigating the choppy waters of trade policy.

But this isn't just about legal theory. Pence used the moment to point out a growing split within his own party. He described tensions between traditional conservatives, who might favor limited government and free trade, and a more populist wing that leans into economic nationalism. He reaffirmed support for continued U.S. assistance to Ukraine and backing for Israel, warning that isolationist policies could carry national security risks. He also criticized the expansion of tariffs and the rising federal debt, suggesting that core limited-government principles have been getting less airtime in recent Republican debates.

Meanwhile, on the other side of this ruling, former President Trump had a rather different reaction. Last week, he raised the global tariff rate to 15%, framing the move as a direct response to what he called an "anti-American" ruling by the Supreme Court. He dismissed the decision as "ridiculous" and vowed to find new ways to wield tariff authority. This came even as polls suggested most Americans supported the court's ruling and were worried about rising costs.

The court's move essentially struck down Trump's earlier use of emergency powers to impose tariffs, reaffirming that Congress holds the trade power. The reaction in Washington was, predictably, mixed. Some Republican senators backed the ruling as a necessary defense of constitutional limits, while others indicated Congress itself might challenge any further tariff expansion. Trump, for his part, signaled he could try to raise tariffs further using different legal provisions.

Not to be outdone, Democratic leaders turned up the volume on their criticism. Their main argument is straightforward: tariffs make things more expensive for everyday households. They've been demanding refunds for the levies already collected. California Governor Gavin Newsom called the tariff policy "madness" and a "farce," accusing Trump of executive overreach. He put a number on the pain, estimating that families are paying about $1,701 more each year because of the tariffs. Other Democrats have echoed that the tariffs were illegal and consumers should be repaid.

So what you have here is more than a one-off legal skirmish. It's a widening fight that touches on executive authority, economic policy, and the very structure of the U.S. government. As both parties prepare for the next election cycle, battles over who controls trade—and how much it costs—are likely to keep heating up. The Supreme Court may have drawn a line, but the debate over where that line is, and who gets to cross it, is far from over.