The Tariffs Loss Is Paradoxically a Win for Trump

"As a matter of law, the opinion breaks hardly any new ground. Notwithstanding the decision's "blockbuster" trappings, the holding of the case is simple and surgical: One particular statute (the International Emergency Economic Powers Act), which never uses the word tariffs, cannot be used to impose tariffs. No other issues had to be decided."

"A large chunk of the opinion's 170 pages is taken up by a vigorous dispute over the major-questions doctrine, which requires Congress to "speak clearly" if it wishes to delegate broad authority to the executive. This dispute was academic, however, given that the six justices in the majority agreed on the outcome regardless of whether or how the doctrine applied."

"Outside the obscure realm of IEEPA, the Court's conservative majority can-and almost certainly will- continue to expand presidential power while constricting agencies' regulatory authority."

The Supreme Court's decision against President Trump in a tariffs case has been widely celebrated as a major defeat for the administration and a victory for judicial restraint. However, the ruling's actual legal impact is narrow and surgical: it simply prohibits using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs, without establishing broader precedent. The opinion's extensive discussion of the major-questions doctrine was largely academic since the six-justice majority agreed on the outcome regardless. The decision defers difficult remedial questions and leaves the conservative majority positioned to continue expanding presidential power and restricting regulatory agency authority in other contexts.

Read at The Atlantic