In a 6-3 decision on Feb. 19, the Supreme Court finally ruled against the executive branch, claiming that President Donald Trump’s tariffs were an abuse of power. Trump utilized the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977 to impose tariffs on almost the entirety of the United States’ trading partners and the Court ruled that the statute was too narrow to be stretched for the use of tariffs. Two of the justices who voted against Trump’s tariffs, Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch, were Trump appointees. 

Chief Justice Roberts wrote in his opinion, “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.”

Trump immediately pushed back against this ruling, calling the ruling a “disgrace” and stating that the justices who voted against the tariffs were an “embarrassment to their families.”

This is clearly a landmark decision in which limits are placed on executive power. To see multiple conservative justices, especially two of whom are Trump-appointed, vote against the interests of a conservative President is rare in our modern political context. 

But the implications of such a decision remain very unclear– almost anticlimactic. The Supreme Court ruled to strike down Trump’s tariffs, but that is all they did. They did not provide solutions or binding rules about these tariffs. In fact, the next day, Trump promised to impose sweeping 15% tariffs on all trading partners. When they went into effect, 10% tariffs were imposed. 

There is clearly a lot of ambiguity regarding what is even going on in the first place. 

One point is clear: the decision is important, but it could have little to no real-world application or repercussions.

If Trump can continually change the legislation under which he claims he is able to impose tariffs, the impact of such a ruling is meaningless. If no one is going to be compensated for the tariffs that have already been collected on either side, the ruling is, again, meaningless for many individuals. And if a Supreme Court ruling cannot even reel in the U.S. president from taking far-reaching, abusive political action, this ruling is meaningless at best, and horrifying at worst. 

The Court’s decision is much less about tariffs or economic decisions and much more about how elites can use broad statutes to abuse their power. As we navigate the aftermath of this ruling, it will be interesting to see three specific things: will the Supreme Court’s relationship with Trump be tainted from now on? Will anything concrete come of this decision? And will business elites fight for reimbursement? 

Much of this remains to be seen, but from a pessimistic viewpoint, the ruling is both eye-opening and terrifying. It reminds us that our feelings of hopelessness are not unrealistic and that political power can be limitless as long as political elites are scared to push back against the executive. As we move forward, we must be aware of whether these elites either cave to Trump or push against him.