On Friday morning, the Supreme Court struck down President Donald Trump’s sweeping “Liberation Day” tariffs in a 6–3 decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, and the Court’s three liberal justices.
In a live conversation with Preet Bharara, constitutional law scholar Steve Vladeck breaks down what the Court actually held, why the voting lineup was so surprising, and what the ruling does—and doesn’t—signal about where the Supreme Court is headed next.
Notes on Preet and Steve’s conversation:
A “pure statutory interpretation” case. The Court rejected Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) as a basis for imposing broad, across-the-board tariffs—following lower-court skepticism and now closing the door at the Supreme Court level.
What happened in the Federal Circuit—and why it mattered. A dissent there argued it wasn’t crazy to read IEEPA as authorizing the tariffs. That dispute tees up the core tension: how far courts will go in reading sweeping economic power into broad statutory text.
Where the real daylight was inside the majority: the “major questions” problem. Even among the justices who struck the tariffs down, the biggest fault line was over major questions doctrine, and what it means for Congress’s ability (or failure) to delegate big economic decisions to the president.
The surprise dissent: Kavanaugh, not Gorsuch. After oral arguments, it looked like Justice Kavanaugh might join the majority. Yet, he wrote the principal dissent. Steve explains why that’s notable, especially because this case checks many of Gorsuch’s usual boxes (text, structure, skepticism of broad delegation). It also doesn’t map neatly onto how the justices lined up in major recent fights like student debt relief.
Is this a turning point in Trump cases? Steve’s read: a resounding but narrow signal. The Court is not reflexively ruling for Trump—but this isn’t a dramatic pivot or a new era, either.
The tariffs question everyone is asking: why were Biden’s okay? Steve walks through the key distinction: there are statutes that authorize tariffs, but they tend to be narrower, more subject-matter specific, and more procedurally constrained. Trump couldn’t use those existing authorities to justify tariffs this broad and sweeping.
Would the Court have ruled differently if the policy felt less like a “tantrum”? Maybe. Steve notes that justices live in the real world: they’re not immune to public reaction—or the hit to their own portfolios. Context doesn’t replace doctrine, but it can shape how doctrine gets applied at the margins.
What Trump does next. The big question now: can Trump repackage tariffs under a different, more specific statutory authority? Steve discusses a plausible path, which could be doing something narrow but branding it as huge.
The messy aftermath: do companies get refunds for tariffs already paid? No one knows yet. The Supreme Court didn’t resolve it, and the lower courts didn’t really tee it up. The justices seem content to let the Court of International Trade go first, likely through cleaner “remedy vehicles” such as company lawsuits (Costco is one example).
No quick closure for businesses. Even after a major ruling, the refund/remedy fight could drag on—along with jockeying over which court (or courts) ultimately decides it.
A bigger institutional takeaway: Congress’s fecklessness. Historically, you’d expect Congress, not courts, to step in when sweeping economic power is being asserted by the executive. The fact that the dispute is being litigated this way is, in Steve’s view, another indictment of legislative paralysis.
Will Justice Samuel Alito retire in June? Steve shares three clues that have fueled the speculation:
a book release slated for October (an unusually busy time for the Court),
a forthcoming biography, and
shifting political incentives—especially if Democrats look more likely to control the Senate and confirmation of Trump’s replacement nominee becomes harder.
Watch the video, and, as always, share your thoughts and questions with us in the comments.
For deeper analysis into the week’s biggest legal headlines, upgrade to a paid subscription. Subscribers get access to the weekly Insider podcast co-hosted by Preet and Joyce Vance, plus other subscriber benefits. Thank you for supporting our work.
— The Stay Tuned team
