Kavanaugh rips Supreme Court majority’s ‘illogical’ line on tariffs

Justice Brett Kavanaugh called the Supreme Court’s decision striking down Trump’s emergency tariffs “illogical” in a fiery dissent on Friday and offered a roadmap of alternatives for Trump to attempt to carry out his signature economic policy.

Kavanaugh, a Trump appointee, said the 6-3 majority cherry-picked ways in which Trump could regulate imports under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, making what he said was a textualist case that the law already allows similar forms of regulation on imports, including quotas and embargoes. Tariffs are not just in the same category as those but are a “far more modest” alternative to them, Kavanaugh said. 

“If quotas and embargoes are a means to regulate importation, how are tariffs not a means to regulate importation? Nothing in the text supports such an illogical distinction,” Kavanaugh wrote.

Trump last year bypassed Congress and unilaterally levied tariffs on nearly every country in the world by invoking IEEPA. The president argued that an influx of illicit drugs from China, Mexico and Canada and a trade deficit that has decimated American manufacturing constituted emergencies that justified the tariffs.

SUPREME COURT BLOCKS TRUMP’S TARIFFS IN MAJOR TEST OF EXECUTIVE POWER

The majority held in a 6-3 opinion that while IEEPA allows a president to “regulate importation” during a declared national emergency, the statute does not clearly authorize tariffs — a core congressional taxing power. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that when executive action carries sweeping economic consequences, Congress must weigh in on the matter with unmistakable clarity, alluding to what is known as the major questions doctrine.

Kavanaugh said the Supreme Court’s decision in 2022 upholding a vaccine mandate former President Joe Biden imposed on millions of healthcare workers “strongly supports” upholding Trump’s tariffs. Like tariffs, that executive action also carried major consequences even though Congress did not explicitly mention vaccines in the health and safety statute Biden used to justify his mandate, Kavanaugh said.

In oral arguments in November, Solicitor General John Sauer, appearing on behalf of the government, said tariffs were an invaluable way for Trump to negotiate with foreign partners. Weakening his “suite of tools” by removing tariffs from it was a “bit unusual,” Sauer said.

Sauer also said tariffs were the same as embargoes, which block imports altogether. The solicitor general conceded, though, that tariffs had the “incidental and collateral effect” of raising revenue, but he said their primary purpose was to regulate rather than collect income. Kavanaugh agreed.

“As the [majority of justices] interpret the statute, the President could, for example, block all imports from China but cannot order even a $1 tariff on goods imported from China,” Kavanaugh wrote.

AS TRUMP TOUTS TARIFF WINDFALL, BATTLEGROUND STATES SHOULDER BILLIONS IN COSTS

Kavanaugh referenced numerous other statutes he said Trump had in his toolbox, mapping out alternatives in the wake of the high court nixing IEEPA as an option. Kavanaugh said the majority “in essence” concluded that Trump “checked the wrong statutory box.”

Trump, in a speech remarking on the decision, praised Kavanaugh for “his genius and his great ability,” adding he was “very proud of that appointment.”

The president referenced a quote from Kavanaugh’s dissent: “‘Although I firmly disagree with the court’s holding today, the decision might not substantially constrain a president’s ability to order tariffs going forward.’ So think of that … and it doesn’t. He’s right.”

“We have very powerful alternatives,” Trump said.

Kavanaugh also raised a glaring question left unaddressed by the high court’s majority, that is, how the U.S. Treasury could go about refunding companies to the tune of billions of dollars that the government gained from the unlawful tariffs.

JONATHAN TURLEY: SUPREME COURT RULING ON TRUMP TARIFFS COMES DOWN TO A NUMBERS GAME

Kavanaugh said of the “serious practical consequences” of outlawing Trump’s ability to use IEEPA to levy tariffs that the refund process could be a “mess” as lower courts are likely to see an influx of lawsuits from business owners looking for their money back.

“The United States may be required to refund billions of dollars to importers who paid the IEEPA tariffs, even though some importers may have already passed on costs to consumers or others,” Kavanaugh wrote. “As was acknowledged at oral argument, the refund process is likely to be a ‘mess.’”

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The majority opinion, authored by Roberts, found that IEEPA’s language allowing a president to regulate imports intentionally omits the word “tariff.”

Roberts wrote that the other words in the statute “cannot bear” the same weight as the word tariff, which he said operates like a tax because it allows the government to collect revenue — which he said only Congress can authorize.

Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas joined Kavanaugh’s dissent, while Thomas also wrote a separate dissent.

‘Impossible to describe:’ Importer who challenged Trump tariffs hails Supreme Court win

Victor Owen Schwartz never imagined he would one day find himself challenging a president in the highest court in the land. But after President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs threatened the survival of his wine importing business, Schwartz became a plaintiff in a case that would ultimately reach the Supreme Court and prevail.

With wines and spirits arriving from 16 countries across five continents, nearly every corner of Schwartz’s supply chain was touched by the new tariffs.

On Friday, the nation’s highest court dealt Trump a significant blow to his trade policy. Schwartz watched the decision unfold over Zoom with his lawyers, the fate of his nearly 40-year-old business hanging in the balance.

SUPREME COURT DEALS BLOW TO TRUMP’S TRADE AGENDA IN LANDMARK TARIFF CASE

“We are relieved and very excited to get back to doing what we love, bringing handmade authentic wines and spirits to American consumers,” Schwartz said. “It’s impossible to describe the feeling of elation, of seeing that, yes, we were right, and the court agrees with us, and a feeling that justice prevailed,” he told Fox News Digital.

Schwartz was a plaintiff in one of two cases brought before the Supreme Court. The challenges — Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections Inc. — were filed by an educational toy manufacturer and Schwartz’s family-owned wine and spirits importer, both contesting the legality of Trump’s tariffs. 

The disputes followed Trump’s so-called “Liberation Day” tariffs in April, a sweeping package of import duties he said would address trade imbalances and reduce reliance on foreign goods.

TRUMP’S TARIFF REVENUES HIT RECORD HIGHS AS SUPREME COURT DEALS MAJOR BLOW

“Last spring, thousands of American small businesses like mine were thrown into chaos,” Schwartz said, referring to the “Liberation Day” tariffs. “The administration’s unprecedented tariffs, which my business was forced to pay upfront, threatened our very existence,” he added.

Unlike previous tariffs enacted by Congress, which businesses could plan around, Schwartz said Trump’s sweeping duties felt unpredictable and arbitrary. He argued the new duties forced small companies to “gamble with our livelihoods by trying to predict the unpredictable,” calling them “an unconstitutional act of government overreach.”

Beyond the legal fight, Schwartz said the strain on cash flow was especially acute.

“A very important thing to realize in running any business, certainly a small business, is the impact on cash flow,” he said. “When you have to pay those tariffs up front before you have sold a single bottle of wine, that’s a major impact … cash flow is the lifeblood of a company.” 

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Meanwhile, the Trump administration has argued that aggressive tariffs are necessary to confront what it calls years of unfair global trade — underscoring how central trade policy is to Trump’s broader economic strategy.

Shortly after the Supreme Court ruling, Trump announced a 10% global tariff and vowed to use other avenues to keep the duties in place.

While questions remain about what comes next for U.S. trade policy, Schwartz said he is focused on moving forward and receiving the “government’s refund of these improperly collected taxes.”

JOHN YOO: Supreme Court tariff ruling should end complaints that justices favor Trump

The Supreme Court just struck down President Donald Trump’s worldwide tariffs. Contrary to immediate takes on the opinion, Learning Resources v. Trump does not mark a permanent reduction in presidential power. If he chooses, Trump could restore many of his tariffs over the next year under different laws. But Learning Resources should put to bed the left’s attacks on the court and the Constitution, while also highlighting the need for cooperation between the president and Congress in managing foreign affairs.

Writing for a 6-3 majority, Chief Justice John Roberts reaffirmed two basic constitutional principles. First, he wrote that the Constitution vests the power to impose tariffs and taxes in Congress alone. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states that “Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposes and Excises,” and “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations.” Second, Congress can delegate that power to the president. Congress has enacted a series of trade laws that have. There was no real disagreement among any of the justices on these two fundamental points.

Where the justices divided is whether Congress had given the president the power to impose the unique, worldwide, immediate tariffs that he imposed last year. On Liberation Day, April 2025, Trump invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) to set targeted tariffs not only on Canada, Mexico and China, but also a universal tariff of at least 10% on all imports. Roberts, joined by a rare coalition of three conservative justices (himself, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett) and three liberal justices (Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson), held that IEEPA did not grant the executive the power to impose tariffs.

The majority unduly narrowed the reach of IEEPA. IEEPA grants the power to the president, in the event of an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to American national security, foreign policy or the economy from abroad, to investigate, block, “regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit” economic transactions with another country.

US TARIFF REVENUE UP 300% UNDER TRUMP AS SUPREME COURT BATTLE LOOMS

Trump declared that the large trade deficit created a national emergency; the court did not touch this aspect of the president’s tariff orders. Instead, the court held that because Congress did not include the specific word “tariff” in IEEPA’s list of powers, it had not granted this power to the executive.

“The President asserts the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope. In light of the breadth, history, and constitutional context of that asserted authority, he must identify clear congressional authorization to exercise it,” Roberts writes. “IEEPA’s grant of authority to ‘regulate … importation’ falls short. IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties.”

This reading pays no attention to the way that the United States has used IEEPA and its predecessor statute, the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917. The government, and the lower courts, have long understood the power to “regulate” trade to include the power to impose a complete embargo on hostile nations, such as Cuba, Iran and North Korea.

SUPREME COURT KEEPS NATION WAITING ON TRUMP TARIFF DECISION, RELEASES 3 LOWER-PROFILE OPINIONS

IEEPA’s reference to the powers to “regulate” and “prevent” “importation” of foreign goods is quite sufficient to justify the president in imposing tariffs. Indeed, if sufficiently high, tariffs are simply a tool to “prevent or prohibit” such “importation.”

Nevertheless, Learning Resources will not prevent Trump from succeeding in the end. The decision only says that the administration cannot impose tariffs under the IEEPA statute. But Congress has enacted several trade laws that clearly grant the president the power to impose tariffs.

Going by the nicknames of Section 232, Section 301, and Super 301, among others, these laws allow the executive to impose reciprocal tariffs in response to high tariffs on American goods, to sanction unfair trade practice by other countries, or to address a surge of imports in a specific product. And trade law still allows tariffs on specific countries that pose a national security threat to the United States. The Supreme Court did not touch those powers, and, as Trump made clear in his press conference, he intends to re-enact as many of his tariffs as possible under these other laws.

BESSENT WARNS OF ‘GIGANTIC LOSS’ IF SUPREME COURT STRIPS TRUMP’S EMERGENCY TARIFF POWERS

Beyond the technical reading of trade statutes, and its impact on Trump’s economic policies, Learning Resources bears deeper lessons on our constitutional order.

First, the decision belies the attacks from the left that the Supreme Court – particularly its conservative majority – simply rubber stamps the Trump administration’s policies. Here, two of Trump’s appointments to the Supreme Court, Gorsuch and Barrett, joined Chief Justice Roberts, himself appointed by President George W. Bush, in striking down the Trump tariffs.

The government, and the lower courts, have long understood the power to “regulate” trade to include the power to impose a complete embargo on hostile nations, such as Cuba, Iran and North Korea.

They were joined by the three justices appointed during the Obama and Biden administrations. These justices did not decide the case because they agree or disagree with tariffs or like or dislike Trump. They simply voted because of the way that they read the IEEPA statute’s lack of the word “tariff.”

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

Second, Learning Resources denies the left’s cries of wolf that the United States is falling under an authoritarian regime. Learning Resources demonstrates, again, that the separation of powers continues to work.

Congress alone has the power to impose tariffs and taxes as part of its overall power of the purse. It can delegate that power to the president; and it has. But when existing statutes are silent, Congress retains the constitutional power to set tariff rates. Trump did not claim a right to impose tariffs unilaterally under his executive power; he continuously argued that Congress simply had given him that power in IEEPA. Even if he reimposes tariffs, he will have to use other trade laws enacted by Congress. Using delegated powers according to the terms set out by Congress does not amount to authoritarianism.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Lastly, Learning Resources points the way for future cooperation between the president and Congress. The dissenters –Thomas, Alito and Kavanaugh – argued that the court should have read IEEPA broadly in order to allow the president to conduct foreign policy and protect the national security. While the president bears the constitutional responsibility to address foreign threats and advance the nation’s interests abroad, the Constitution vests in Congress the means of international economics.

In order to achieve the nation’s interests in restoring dominance in the Western Hemisphere or fending over the rising threat of China, the president and Congress will have to cooperate to ensure that economic policy plays a harmonious role in a full-spectrum American approach to the world.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM JOHN YOO

Fox News Poll: Trump’s tariffs faced broad disapproval even before Supreme Court ruling

Even before the Supreme Court handed a blow to President Donald Trump’s sweeping trade policy, Americans were already voicing strong disapproval in national polling of his handling of tariffs.

A Fox News survey conducted between Jan. 23 and 26 found 63% of registered voters disapprove of Trump’s handling of tariffs, while 37% approve, a 26-point deficit that ranks trade among his weakest-performing issues.

The results highlight resistance to the administration’s aggressive trade strategy. The White House has promoted tariffs as both an economic lever and a source of federal revenue, but the poll suggests that argument is not resonating with many voters.

SUPREME COURT DEALS BLOW TO TRUMP’S TRADE AGENDA IN LANDMARK TARIFF CASE

TRUMP’S TARIFF REVENUES HIT RECORD HIGHS AS SUPREME COURT DEALS MAJOR BLOW
 

This administration has repeatedly argued that tariff revenue can fund domestic priorities like lowering the nation’s $38 trillion debt and potentially delivering a $2,000 dividend check to Americans.

And collections have surged. 

Since Trump’s return to office, tariff revenue has climbed more than 300%. In January alone, duties totaled $30.4 billion, up 275% from a year earlier. So far this fiscal year, revenue has reached $132.6 billion.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Yet despite the windfall, public opinion has not followed the same trajectory.

Disapproval extends beyond trade. The poll found 59% disapprove of Trump’s handling of the economy and 65% disapprove of his handling of inflation, economic anxieties that may be shaping views of tariff policy.

Taken together, the numbers indicate that even before recent legal developments, the president’s trade agenda was facing significant public headwinds, raising questions about its political durability as cost-of-living concerns persist.

Supreme Court kills Trump’s ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs — but 4 other laws could resurrect them

The Supreme Court rebuked President Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose sweeping “Liberation Day” tariffs, ruling that the Constitution gives Congress — not the president — authority over tariffs.

But the decision may not be the final word. From the Trade Expansion Act to the Trade Act of 1974 and even Depression-era statutes, multiple legal avenues remain that could allow Trump to reassert aggressive trade powers.

In a 6-3 decision led by George W. Bush-appointed Chief Justice John Roberts, the court ruled that the “framers gave [tariff] power to Congress alone, notwithstanding the obvious foreign affairs implications of tariffs.”

George H.W. Bush-appointed Justice Clarence Thomas, Trump-appointed Justice Brett Kavanaugh and George W. Bush-appointed Justice Samuel Alito dissented.

SUPREME COURT PREPARES TO CONFRONT MONUMENTAL CASE OVER TRUMP EXECUTIVE POWER AND TARIFF AUTHORITY

On “Liberation Day” in 2025, Trump cited the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), drafted by former Rep. Jonathan Brewster-Bingham, D-N.Y., to declare an emergency situation in which foreign countries were “ripping off” the U.S.

With that avenue now closed by Roberts, Trump could try to use the same national security rationale to invoke the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which in part allows the Commerce Department to impose tariffs on “article[s]… imported… in such quantities or under such circumstances as to threaten or impair the national security.”

Unlike the IEEPA, the JFK-era law has been tested in the courts, and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has since built on his predecessor Wilbur Ross’ 2018 steel and aluminum tariffs imposed under the act, adding 407 more imports to the tariff list on the grounds that they are “derivative” of the two approved metals.

TRUMP’S OWN SCOTUS PICKS COULD WIND UP HURTING HIM ON TARIFFS

During his 2025 confirmation hearing, Lutnick voiced support for a “country by country, macro” approach to tariffs and agreed with the president that the U.S. is “treated horribly by the global trading environment.”

While tariffs imposed under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act are not immediate and require the Commerce Department to conduct a formal investigation, the law provides a court-tested avenue for the president.

In the wake of Friday’s ruling, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and others celebrated the court’s affirmation that Trump cannot use “emergency powers to enact taxes,” but Congress has previously approved another avenue to impose tariffs.

Then-Rep. Albert Ullman, D-Ore., crafted a bill signed by President Gerald Ford that expressly gave presidents broader authority to impose tariffs: the Trade Act of 1974.

A federal appeals court in September ruled against thousands of companies that challenged tariffs on China imposed under Section 301 of the Trade Act.

6 HOUSE REPUBLICANS DEFY TRUMP ON KEY AGENDA ITEM IN DEM-PUSHED VOTE

In this case, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, a Trump appointee, could seek retaliatory tariffs against countries with unfair trade barriers, according to Global Policy Watch.

An investigation, including negotiations with the targeted countries, would then ensue, and Greer could ultimately be cleared to impose trade restrictions if the probe finds that the U.S. is being denied trade agreement benefits or that such a deal is unjustifiable.

However, in most cases, imposed tariffs sunset after four years, according to reports.

In Trump’s favor, it could be argued that the same reasoning Roberts used to strike down the IEEPA authority could backfire on tariff opponents because the 1974 law explicitly gives the executive branch trade-restriction authority.

Another section of the Ford-signed law could also be used to unilaterally impose tariffs.

Section 122, the “Balance of Payments” portion of the law, allows Trump to temporarily enforce tariffs or import quotas in certain situations.

A president may impose tariff duties of up to 15% for 150 days against all or certain countries if they are found to be “maintain[ing] unjustifiable or unreasonable restrictions on U.S. commerce,” according to the Retail Industry Leaders Association.

“This authority is intended to give the executive branch flexibility to respond quickly to trade practices that may harm U.S. economic interests or to correct significant balance-of-payments deficits,” the trade group said in a June report.

However, reports show Section 122 has not been tested in court as extensively, which could lead to lawsuits and legal uncertainty.

SUPREME COURT RULES ON TRUMP TARIFFS IN MAJOR TEST OF EXECUTIVE BRANCH POWERS

Another potential policy option for Trump is one that drew sharp criticism when President Herbert Hoover signed it against the advice of economists early in the Great Depression.

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, named for Republican Sen. Reed Smoot of Utah and Rep. Willis Hawley of Oregon, imposed tariffs on tens of thousands of imports in hopes of protecting American producers facing dire economic conditions.

Hawley’s great-granddaughter, Carey Cezar of Baltimore, told NBC News in 2025 that she voted for Kamala Harris and opposed Trump’s tariffs after her ancestor’s name resurfaced in public discourse.

Other critics of Smoot-Hawley say it is a key reason the Depression was so dire and expansive.

However, the law still provides a mechanism for the Commerce Department to determine when a good is being “dumped” on U.S. consumers or whether a foreign country is unfairly subsidizing an export to the U.S., and to respond with tariffs.

Additionally, while Trump has imposed tariffs largely on a country-by-country basis, Smoot-Hawley requires that levies be applied on a product-by-product basis.

BESSENT WARNS OF ‘GIGANTIC LOSS’ IF SUPREME COURT STRIPS TRUMP’S EMERGENCY TARIFF POWERS

A fifth avenue that is largely unreachable by Trump is the Fordney-McCumber Tariff Act of 1922.

Sen. Porter McCumber, R-N.D., and Rep. Joseph Fordney, R-Mich., passed a bill allowing Republican President Warren Harding to impose much higher tariffs than were standard at the time, in hopes of protecting U.S. farmers from a sharp decline in revenue following World War I.

In one of the first contemporary rebukes of protectionism, Fordney-McCumber was criticized for permitting tariffs as high as 50% on countries, including allies, which opponents said had the unintended consequence of hurting America’s ability to service its war debts.

Fordney-McCumber was eventually superseded by Smoot-Hawley, and any remaining provisions are considered obsolete following the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act, signed by President Franklin Roosevelt to undo some of Congress’ trade restrictions.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The RTAA shifted tariff authority from Congress to the president, granting authority for bilateral negotiations aimed at lowering tariffs at the time.

That dynamic, often called “reciprocity,” is being used in the Trump era not to lower tariffs but to raise them.

Trump’s tariff revenues hit record highs as Supreme Court deals major blow

Tariff collections surged to historic highs under President Donald Trump, advancing his trade agenda before the Supreme Court stepped in on Friday to limit the power behind many of the levies. 

Tariffs have been a defining feature of Trump’s economic agenda since his return to office, and revenue from the duties has risen roughly 300%. In January alone, duties brought in $30.4 billion — up 275% from a year earlier. For the fiscal year to date, collections have reached $124 billion, an increase of about 300% over the same period last year.

This administration has repeatedly argued that tariff revenue can fund domestic priorities — including lowering the nation’s $38 trillion debt and potentially delivering a $2,000 dividend check to Americans — as critics from both the left and right warn that tariffs could raise consumer prices and strain global trade relationships.

SUPREME COURT DEALS BLOW TO TRUMP’S TRADE AGENDA IN LANDMARK TARIFF CASE

Tariffs are essentially taxes on imports, typically paid upfront by U.S. importers who then push the added expense down the supply chain to retailers and consumers. That can translate into higher prices for goods ranging from electronics to raw materials.

Their overall economic impact hinges on how much of the cost consumers absorb, how domestic producers respond and whether the intended strategic benefits justify the additional expense.

TRUMP SAYS US WOULD BE ‘DESTROYED’ WITHOUT TARIFF REVENUE

With affordability a central concern for voters heading into the midterm elections, any policy that raises consumer prices is likely to face heightened political scrutiny.

The Supreme Court case arose from lawsuits filed by an educational toy maker and a family-owned wine and spirits importer challenging Trump’s sweeping “Liberation Day” tariffs unveiled in April. The broad package of import duties was designed, the administration said, to address trade imbalances and reduce reliance on foreign goods.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Revenue surged in the months that followed, climbing from $9.6 billion in March to $23.9 billion in May. For fiscal year 2025, which ended Sept. 30, 2025, total duty collections reached $215.2 billion, according to Treasury data. The upward trend has continued into fiscal 2026, with receipts already running ahead of last year’s pace.

The Supreme Court ruling injects fresh uncertainty into the future of the tariffs and how the Trump administration will respond. The White House did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.

Ex-Prince Andrew released from police custody hours after arrest

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor was released from police custody on Thursday, the same day he was arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office.

Andrew was photographed wide-eyed with his mouth open while pictured in the backseat of a vehicle, leaving the Aylsham Police Station.

Thames Valley police confirmed Andrew’s release and noted authorities are still searching the disgraced royal’s former home, the Royal Lodge.

FORMER PRINCE ANDREW ARRESTED ON SUSPICION OF MISCONDUCT IN PUBLIC OFFICE

Earlier Thursday, King Charles III expressed his “deepest concern” about the news of his brother, former Prince Andrew, being arrested on suspicion of misconduct while in public office.

“What now follows is the full, fair and proper process by which this issue is investigated in the appropriate manner and by the appropriate authorities. In this, as I have said before, they have our full and wholehearted support and co-operation,” the king said in a statement.

“Let me state clearly: the law must take its course,” he added. “As this process continues, it would not be right for me to comment further on this matter. Meanwhile, my family and I will continue in our duty and service to you all.”

On Thursday, Thames Valley Police issued a statement on a newly opened misconduct probe. Without naming the person at the center of the case, police said that “a man in his sixties from Norfolk” was arrested on suspicion of misconduct while in office. Thames Valley Police said officers were carrying out searches at addresses in Norfolk and Berkshire.

“Following a thorough assessment, we have now opened an investigation into this allegation of misconduct in public office,” Assistant Chief Constable Oliver Wright said in a statement. “It is important that we protect the integrity and objectivity of our investigation as we work with our partners to investigate this alleged offense.”

“We understand the significant public interest in this case, and we will provide updates at the appropriate time,” Wright added.

Thames Valley Police said the man would not be named, citing “national guidance.”

Mountbatten-Windsor, who turned 66 on the day of his arrest, was previously linked to disgraced late financier Jeffrey Epstein, and has appeared in the infamous Epstein files, including in images. 

In 2019, the late Queen Elizabeth II forced her son, Mountbatten-Windsor, to give up his royal duties and end his charity work after he tried to explain his ties to Epstein during a BBC interview.

Last week, the king said Buckingham Palace was ready to “support” U.K. police examining claims against his brother.

STARMER CALLS ON EX-PRINCE ANDREW TO TESTIFY BEFORE CONGRESS AFTER LATEST EPSTEIN RELEASE

“The King has made clear, in words and through unprecedented actions, his profound concern at allegations which continue to come to light in respect of Mr. Mountbatten-Windsor’s conduct,” the palace said in a statement, according to The Associated Press. “While the specific claims in question are for Mr. Mountbatten-Windsor to address, if we are approached by Thames Valley Police we stand ready to support them as you would expect.”

Police had previously said they were looking into reports that Mountbatten-Windsor had shared confidential trade reports with Epstein in 2010, when the then-prince was serving as Britain’s special envoy for international trade.

Virginia Roberts Giuffre, who committed suicide last year, alleged that Mountbatten-Windsor had sex with her when he knew she was only 17, according to an extract from her memoir published by The Guardian.

She said Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell had told her, “When we get home, you are to do for him what you do for Jeffrey.”

“He was friendly enough, but still entitled – as if he believed having sex with me was his birthright,” Giuffre wrote of Andrew. “The next morning, Maxwell told me: ‘You did well. The prince had fun.’ Epstein would give me $15,000 for servicing the man the tabloids called ‘Randy Andy’,” Giuffre wrote.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

If the case were to go to trial, it would head to the UK’s Crown Court, which deals with the most serious criminal offenses, and the former prince would be facing life behind bars. Additionally, U.K. law limits the amount of time that Mountbatten-Windsor can be held in detention to 96 hours. 

The Crown Prosecution Service, the main prosecuting agency in the U.K., says misconduct in public office is committed when a public officer willfully neglects their responsibilities and/or willfully misconducts themselves to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust. Furthermore, the offense must be done when the person is acting as a public officer in the commission of the crime.

Russia sentences American to 4 years for allegedly trying to take Kalashnikov rifle stocks: report

An American was sentenced Tuesday to four years in jail in Russia for allegedly trying to fly out of an airport in Moscow with the stocks of Kalashnikov assault rifles in his suitcase, a report said. 

The unnamed U.S. citizen, who collects Kalashnikov weapons, did not make a customs declaration after purchasing two stocks and checking a suitcase containing the items at Moscow’s Vnukovo airport, Reuters reported, citing the RIA Novosti state news agency. 

He later was found guilty under an article of Russian criminal code relating to the smuggling of weapons, it added. 

Fox News Digital has reached out to the State Department for comment.

RUSSIA UPS JAIL SENTENCE OF US CITIZEN TO 10 YEARS FOR BEATING PRISON STAFF

Russian state media is also claiming the American partially admitted guilt, according to Reuters. 

The State Department warns Americans not to travel to Russia “for any reason due to terrorism, unrest, wrongful detention and other risks.”

CHINA PLEDGES AID TO UKRAINE AS US OFFICIALS WARN BEIJING IS QUIETLY FUELING RUSSIA’S WAR

“The U.S. Embassy in Moscow has limited ability to assist in the case of a detention of a U.S. citizen. There is no guarantee that the Russian government will grant the U.S. Embassy consular access to detained U.S. citizens,” the State Department said. “U.S. citizens may serve their entire prison sentence without release. The risk of wrongful detention of U.S. citizens remains high. Even if a case is determined wrongful, there is no guarantee of release.”  

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“Russian officials often question and threaten U.S. citizens without reason. Russian security services have arrested U.S. citizens on false charges,” it added. They have denied them fair treatment and convicted them without credible evidence. Russian authorities have opened questionable investigations against U.S. citizens for their religious activities.”