President Donald Trump’s chances of surviving a Supreme Court showdown over his sweeping tariff regime quietly appeared to tick higher Friday — not because the justices issued a ruling, but because they didn’t rule at all, according to legal observers.
The high court again declined to issue a decision in the closely watched case challenging Trump’s use of emergency powers to impose tariffs, leaving investors, importers and businesses in limbo after bracing for an opinion that is yet to come despite their expectations.
The delay marked the second time in less than a week that the court passed on releasing a ruling, fueling speculation that the justices are divided — and that the prolonged wait may ultimately favor the White House.
“We agree that a long wait for the tariff decision is probably a better sign for the Trump administration than it is for importers, but it is no guarantee of the outcome,” Kelsey Christensen, a trade attorney at law firm Clark Hill, told the financial news site MarketWatch.
Christensen said the case is still moving quickly by Supreme Court standards, noting that oral arguments were held just two months ago.
“November to January is lightning speed for the court to hear and publish a major opinion,” she observed, adding that the justices may be “fine-tuning a majority opinion” along with “dissents or concurrences.”
In legalese, a concurrence is a separate opinion written by a judge who agrees with the majority but wishes to state different reasoning or emphasize other arguments.
Terence Lau, dean of Syracuse University’s law school and a former trade attorney for Ford Motor Co., told MarketWatch that the justices may be struggling with how far to go if they rule against Trump.
“The longer wait suggests the justices are debating the scope of the remedy,” Lau said.
One possibility, he said, is a “middle ground” outcome in which the court invalidates the tariffs but limits refunds to future collections, sparing the Treasury from having to repay past duties already collected.
“The longer the tariffs remain in place, the more catastrophic a retroactive refund becomes for the US Treasury,” Lau warned.
Market watchers have been reading the tea leaves in real time.
On the prediction market Kalshi, the odds of a Trump victory in the tariff case rose to 34% on Friday, up from as low as 22% earlier in the week.
Polymarket showed similar movement, with Trump’s chances climbing to 33% after dipping near 21% just a few days prior.
The case carries massive economic stakes, with billions of dollars in tariff revenue — and potential refunds — hanging in the balance.
Lower courts previously ruled that Trump exceeded his authority by using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 to justify country-specific tariffs.
Critics argue the statute does not explicitly authorize tariffs and has never before been used for that purpose.
Trump has repeatedly defended the legality of his actions and warned that striking down the tariffs would inflict serious damage on the US economy.
In a social-media post earlier this week, the president raised alarms about the prospect of massive refunds if the highest court in the land invalidates the levies.
“It would be a complete mess, and almost impossible for our country to pay,” Trump wrote.
Trump administration officials have signaled they are prepared to keep tariffs in place even if the Supreme Court strikes down the current regime, with plans to reissue levies under alternative trade laws.
Those fallback options include invoking Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act on national security grounds, as well as Sections 301, 122 and 338 of the Trade Act — authorities that would allow the White House to impose new or temporary tariffs through different legal channels.
The Post has sought comment from the White House.
