In one respect this decision is not altogether surprising.

The way the Supreme Court hearings were going, this seemed the most likely decision from the US judiciary.

Even so, it’s an enormous blow to the Trump regime.

The best place to begin understanding this is to go all the way back in history to the US constitution.

At the heart of it was the notion that the president should not have the unilateral power to set taxes which, back then at least, mostly consisted of tariffs.

Tariffs, in other words, needed to be decided by Congress. This wasn’t just incidental; it was the cornerstone of the much-celebrated “separation of powers”.

Trump latest: Tariffs snubbed by Supreme Court

The downside of this pretty clear constitutional stricture is that getting anything through Congress is often time consuming and cumbersome.

So, over the decades, various exceptions were written into law to allow presidents to, say, impose emergency tariffs in the event of national security or balance of payments crises – or because of a specific issue with a particular sector.

These exceptions represent a catalogue of obscure legal loopholes where the president can actually impose tariffs unilaterally without having to go through Congress.

Understanding this history is quite important to understanding what has just happened. Because much of the small print of how Donald Trump has imposed tariffs thus far has come back to the president’s use of these various historic loopholes.

So, for instance, the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 has a clause, section 232, that says he can impose tariffs on certain sectors if there is a national security justification. The president used this clause for his tariffs on steel and aluminium

As for the famous “Liberation Day” tariffs, they were implemented under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977.

This is really only supposed to be used when the country is in a national emergency of one sort or another. That, certainly, was the president’s justification for the Liberation Day tariffs: trade deficits, illegal drug inflows – these, he argued, constituted a national emergency.

The main development is that now we know the Supreme Court disagrees.

All the IEEPA tariffs, which is to say a fair chunk, about half, of all his levies are now null and void. There is a serious question mark about whether the administration may have to refund part, or perhaps even all, of the money paid thus far under these “Liberation Day” tariffs.

In one respect, this doesn’t fundamentally change anything, insofar as it will probably just force the administration to use some of those other obscure loopholes to recoup extra levies. The White House can blame the judiciary for obstructing the course of politics.

Read more from Sky News:
Trump directs US government to release files on ‘alien life’
Trump’s peace board pledges billions of dollars to Gaza

However, coming as it does as the president’s poll ratings slump (in no small part because tariffs are not particularly popular), there is another potential avenue, where this episode forces Trump to concede (to the extent that it would be cast as a concession) that tariffs are not working as he might have hoped.

Either way, it’s yet more chaos from the on-again-off-again trade war.

Doubtless there will be more twists and turns to come.

Constable Kevin McGhee and another colleague had attended the flat in search of a male suspected of stabbing his partner.

A brave Scottish cop who dragged a suspected knifeman from a burning flat is being awarded for his bravery. Constable Kevin McGhee and another colleague had attended the Lanarkshire flat in search of a male suspected of stabbing his partner.

On arrival, the officers noticed that thick black smoke was coming from the top-floor flat – but the suspect was refusing to leave. Kevin made the brave and courageous decision to force entry to the property and was met with billowing smoke, intense heat, and extremely reduced visibility.

Despite the conditions, he was able to drag the male to safety before re-entering to check no one else was within, reports Glasgow Live. Due to his heroic actions, Kevin has been named as a winner at the Chief Constable’s Bravery Awards taking place next week

He said: “I am firstly honoured to have been nominated and secondly delighted to have been selected to receive a Chief Constable Bravery Award. As police officers we are faced with difficult circumstances on a daily basis.

“We take an oath to protect and serve our communities and in doing so have a duty to preserve life. I firmly believe any of my colleagues would have done the same as myself in the circumstances.

“I wish to thank my colleagues who assisted during the incident, the Scottish Fire and Rescue and Scottish Ambulance Service for their response and assistance.”

A four-legged law enforcer will also be trotted out to receive the Police Animal Lifetime Achievement. Police horse Cathcart has served at high-profile events such as the Glasgow Commonwealth Games, Scottish Cup finals, Old Firm matches, COP26, and presidential visits.

Known for his boldness, composure, and instinctive crowd-control ability, he has safely escorted thousands, protected officers, and helped train new riders. And now he is being recognised for his 13 years of service.

Get more Daily Record exclusives by signing up for free to Google’s preferred sources. Click HERE.

Chief Constable Jo Farrell KPM said: “Policing is a relentless and challenging job like no other. Accounts of how our people show up and stand up for, and with, our communities can be a source of energy and pride for policing in Scotland.

“We police with, and for, the people of Scotland and rely on their support and assistance to build and maintain safe, secure, and resilient communities where everyone can thrive.

“I want to congratulate all the nominees and winners for their dedication to keeping Scotland safe.”

A massive rescue operation had been launched on Yr Wyddfa in Eryri National Park

The bodies of two men have been found on Snowdon after a major search operation was launched. An alert was first raised on Wednesday (February 18) after concern grew for the welfare of two men, aged 19 and 20.

Crews from Llanberis Mountain Rescue Team, Aberglaslyn Mountain Rescue Team, RAF Mountain Rescue Service, SARDA and HM Coastguard were deployed and carried out extensive searches on Yr Wyddfa – also known as Snowdon – until the early hours of Thursday morning. Searches resumed at approximately 8am on Thursday, 19 February on the mountain in Eryri National Park.

Bodies of the two men were tragically located and recovered as part of these co-ordinated search efforts. Both have now been formally identified, and their families have been informed, North Wales Live reports.

Click here to prioritise Manchester news in Google from the MEN

A police spokesperson said: “We can confirm that two bodies have been located in the Eryri mountain range during searches for two missing men, aged 19 and 20. The coroner has been notified, and we ask that the privacy of the families is respected at this difficult time.”

Jurgen Dissmann, Chair of Llanberis Mountain Rescue Team, said: “On behalf of Llanberis Mountain Rescue Team, I would like to extend our most heartfelt condolences to the families and loved ones of the two men who have tragically lost their lives. The team were tasked by North Wales Police and launched an extensive multi-agency operation in full winter conditions.

“Volunteers searched across challenging mountain terrain in snow and ice, working long hours through the night in difficult weather in an effort to locate the pair as quickly as possible. Despite the determined and sustained commitment of everyone involved, we are deeply saddened that, despite all efforts, the outcome was not what we had hoped for.

“I would like to sincerely thank our colleagues from Aberglaslyn Mountain Rescue Team, RAF Mountain Rescue Team, SARDA and HM Coastguard for their invaluable assistance throughout the operation.”

Police added: “Further updates will be provided when appropriate.”

Officers were patrolling Bolton town centre last night (February 20) when they stopped the car “following suspicious circumstances”.

They checked the driver and his car, finding that they were making food deliveries without the proper insurance to do so.

Police also found the driver had only a provisional licence and reported them.

A spokesperson for GMP said: “Last night, whilst on patrol as part of Operation Overspill PC Morgan has stopped a vehicle following suspicious circumstances.

“After further checks on the driver and the vehicle, it was discovered that the driver was making food deliveries without the insurance to be doing so.

“The driver was also driving on a provisional licence.

“The driver has been reported for driving otherwise in accordance with a licence and no insurance, the car was subsequently seized and awaits the driver’s collection!”

In today’s fast-moving media world, brands are frequently required to respond to scandals that may tarnish perceptions of their products or services. Quick responses to quieten rumours or accept responsibility for missteps are crucial.

This becomes challenging when people themselves are the brand. Their behaviour is much harder to control than a press release. They present feelings and emotions that may disrupt any strategic response to scandal.

Britain’s royal family is a case in point – and with the arrest of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, their brand is facing one of its biggest tests of the modern age.

Consumers are known to form deeper, more emotional bonds with human brands than nonhuman ones – such as the passionate fans of Taylor Swift, who identify with her on a personal level. The flipside is that any perceived lapses or failures in judgment may also generate stronger emotions, reflecting more negatively on perceptions of that brand.

For years, the royal family has had to navigate publicity around the former Duke of York. Much of this is related to his long-term relationship with the late financier and convicted child sex offender, Jeffrey Epstein. Mountbatten-Windsor’s arrest under suspicion of misconduct in public office places the rest of the family in a position of protecting the brand from damage by distancing themselves from him.

The arrest follows the US government publication of documents that appear to show Mountbatten-Windsor sharing official information with Epstein during his time as a trade envoy. That period, from 2001-11, was not without scrutiny for the then-prince. But the palace generally kept a low profile in response – following the mantra “never complain, never explain” that was often attributed to the late Queen Elizabeth.

Mountbatten-Windsor stepped down from the trade envoy role in 2011, with the palace issuing a simple statement that, in future, he would “undertake trade engagements if requested”.

In the following years, public pressure mounted on the royal family to be more transparent in many respects, especially concerning Mountbatten-Windsor’s embroilment with Epstein.

The turning point from a low-profile brand management strategy to more overt actions appears to have been Mountbatten-Windsor’s Newsnight interview in November 2019, in which he claimed to have broken off his friendship with Epstein in 2010. He also denied allegations of sexual abuse that had been brought by Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre.

This moment provided a focal point that attracted public outrage. In response, the royal family began to take more decisive action to avoid the brand being contaminated or “infected” by the negativity surrounding the former prince.

Social contagion

The concept of social contagion helps us understand how this works.

According to social contagion theory, people are influenced by those around them. This helps explain how behaviour, attitudes or emotions can spread through a group or society, much like a virus. What you may call “cancel culture” occurs when disapproval and moral condemnation of an individual or group snowballs across social media as people feel compelled to join in.

The reaction to the Newsnight interview – memes, mocking headlines and charities and sponsors distancing themselves from Mountbatten-Windsor – would have made clear to the royal family that their brand was at risk from this social contagion.

Despite the late queen’s reported support for her son, the monarchy began taking formal measures to protect the institution. In November 2019, Mountbatten-Windsor stepped back from public duties “for the foreseeable future”. In January 2022, he was stripped of royal patronages and military titles, as well as the right to use His Royal Highness in any official capacity.

The following month, Mountbatten-Windsor settled out of court with Giuffre for a reported £12 million, with no admission of wrongdoing.

À lire aussi :
Spare: how the soap opera around Prince Harry’s memoir will affect the royal brand

In May 2023, although he attended King Charles III’s coronation, he played no official role and was not included in the procession or royal balcony appearance. Since that time, King Charles and Prince William have made it known they do not want him back in public life.

The full removal of Mountbatten-Windsor’s title of prince in October 2025, following the publication of more Epstein-related documents, solidified his permanent exclusion from public life. Most recently, he has been forced to leave his royal residence and move to a more isolated home on the Sandringham Estate in Norfolk.

Both the king and William issued written statements to distance themselves in light of the newest Epstein files, expressing their “deep concern” for Epstein’s victims. The formality of making written statements signalled the seriousness with which they viewed the events, and also acted as a public record of their distancing from Mountbatten-Windsor. In showing their sympathy for the victims, they were aligning morally with them rather than defending him.

Once a brand is accused of criminal wrongdoing, this potentially escalates a crisis from a minor reputational issue into one that risks a complete breakdown of trust in the brand.

In a statement, the king said “let me state clearly: the law must take its course” and “my family and I will continue in our duty and service to you all”. His reference to “Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor”, as opposed to acknowledging him as his brother, makes clear Mountbatten-Windsor’s ostracisation from the rest of the family.

The royal family appear to have navigated their responses to the potential tarnishing of the monarchy in both official and unofficial ways. They have stripped Mountbatten-Windsor of all official roles and titles, excluded him from public royal events, shown public support for Epstein’s victims, and employed a media management strategy that shifts the focus to other royals.

But polling conducted before the arrest suggests the royal brand is still at risk.

Brands can weather scandals by making fast responses and accepting responsibility. But they may also need to build trust again by proving in the longer term that they have changed. Perhaps the royal family is due for a rebrand.