Explain Like I'm Five

True; however, from the text of the opinion:

Many statutes grant the Executive the power to “regulate.” Yet the Government cannot identify any statute in which the power to regulate includes the power to tax. The Court is therefore skeptical that in IEEPA—and IEEPA alone—Congress hid a delegation of its birth-right power to tax within the quotidian power to “regulate.”

While taxes may accomplish regulatory ends, it does not follow that the power to regulate includes the power to tax as a means of regulation. Indeed, when Congress addresses both the power to regulate and the power to tax, it does so separately and expressly. That it did not do so here is strong evidence that “regulate” in IEEPA does not include taxation.

It’s a little more subtle, but what I’m picking up is, Hey Trump’s legal team (ya clowns), in this instance, you should find a way to “regulate” that does not involve “taxation” because that falls under congress’ jurisdiction. This is your way to do it. But it will be lost on Trump, of course, because he’s madder than a rattlesnake at a Thai wedding.