As widely expected by those who’ve actually read the Constitution, most of the tariffs Donald Trump has imposed on the rest of the world were found to be wrongly implemented in a 6–3 Supreme Court decision. There are other ways a president can legally implement tariffs, but they require investigations and/or Congressional approval. In other words, the checks and balances that were once assumed actually do apply. For the record, I am an economics major, though in all fairness, it’s been a long time since I picked up a book on the subject.
One choice is to do nothing, which will lead to a gradual stabilization of the marketplace. Doing nothing will reduce the inflation caused by the tariffs and provide businesses more certainty in a world where tariffs previously depended on whether Trump felt someone was respectful enough. It will also take away the tool Trump has been using to blackmail the world into doing his bidding. The economy will improve slightly, though it may be too late to salvage Republican hopes in the midterm elections.
The other choice is to do something. Trump has a variety of options, including imposing tariffs through different mechanisms while pretending they aren’t a tax on the American people. Whatever Trump might do, it will keep market uncertainty high and inflation elevated, increasing the likelihood Republicans will get thrashed in the midterms.
If you know Trump as I do, you know he can’t help but do the stupid thing. His ego won’t allow him to do otherwise. He’s already given a press conference, bashing the Supreme Court with special attention paid to the right-wing “traitors,” Roberts, Barrett, and Gorsuch, despite them voting in Trump’s favor an overwhelming percentage of the time. Trump is a what-have-you-done-for-me-lately kind of guy.
As for the small to medium-sized businesses that brought their case to the Supreme Court, they’re probably hopeful they’ll get back the money they have spent on Trump’s tariffs. I’d advise them not to hold their breath, as SCOTUS issued no guidelines on how refunds are supposed to be processed. When SCOTUS decided Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, it issued no directions on what to do next. The mandate, “with all deliberate speed,” didn’t come out until Brown v. Board II in 1955. It took a full thirty years for schools in America to desegregate meaningfully, even then requiring consent decrees in major cities to get the job done.
In the end, the Court’s ruling didn’t just strike down a set of tariffs; it reminded the country that even a president who treats government like a personal grievance machine still operates inside a constitutional frame. Trump will almost certainly choose escalation over restraint, because restraint requires discipline, and discipline requires humility. But the rest of us don’t have to follow him down that path. Markets will adjust. Allies will adapt. The law will hopefully do what it was designed to do: limit the damage one man can inflict when he mistakes impulse for strategy.
The real question isn’t what Trump does next. It’s whether the country still recognizes the difference between power and competence, between noise and governance. The Court has drawn its line. History will draw the next one. And the voters, sooner than Trump realizes, will decide which side of that line they want to stand on.