A Supreme Court ruling Friday addressing the scope of presidential tariff authority prompted debate over its financial implications and the broader political narrative surrounding the high court.

On CNN’s “NewsNight,” host Abby Phillip discussed potential economic fallout from the decision, citing a Congressional Budget Office report examining how tariffs affect businesses and consumers.

According to the report referenced during the segment, U.S. businesses absorb about 30% of import price increases, while consumers bear the remaining 70%, with the net effect pushing consumer prices up by roughly 95 percent of the domestically borne tariff costs.

During the discussion, commentator Scott Jennings challenged Phillip’s framing of the issue.

Trump's Sovereign Wealth Fund: What Could It Mean For Your Money?

“Well, which is it?” Jennings said.

“You said all of it was passed through to the consumers. You said that most of it was absorbed by some of the companies. It sounds like maybe it might be a little bit of both.”

Phillip suggested that if refunds were issued following the court’s decision, they should reflect how the tariffs were originally collected.

Jennings responded by predicting complications, warning that returning large sums of tariff revenue could create a bureaucratic and legal challenge involving significant amounts of money and years of litigation.

FREE Gun Law Map: Laws Don't Pause During Social Unrest

Jennings then shifted the focus to the constitutional process behind the ruling and the response from President Donald Trump.

“I'll just say, you know, politically, today, you know, it was a big breaking news day, but I just think we ought to acknowledge something,” Jennings said.

“This is a properly functioning government today. The president of the United States, the head of the executive branch, made a policy decision. The Supreme Court, it renders legal opinions about these kinds of decisions, made a decision, they said, you can't do that. The president of the United States said, ‘Okay, I agree, and I will acknowledge your decision. I'm going to use a different statute to try to do what I want to do.’ This is properly functioning government.”

Jennings also addressed criticism from Democratic lawmakers and media commentators who have argued in recent years that the Supreme Court lacks independence.

“For every Democrat and every media person that has gone on for the last year or two about how this Supreme Court is a wholly owned subsidiary of Donald Trump, that it's not independent, that it does whatever he says to do, obviously, that narrative was obliterated today,” Jennings said.

He added, “So, to me, I thought this was actually — I thought the ruling was sound. I think the president is sound to try other statutes. And I think the narratives about the court not being independent and the president not obeying the court were totally blown up today.”

WATCH:

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Objectivist. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary.