The appeals court ruling against President Trump’s tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act drew a sharp dissent.

Peter Navarro, Trump’s trade advisor, has insisted that the dissent gives the administration a “roadmap” to win at the Supreme Court in November.

Navarro is wrong. The dissent provides a series of detours into statutory misreadings and constitutional overreach. If anything, it makes the weaknesses of the administration’s case even clearer.

That dissent leans on the idea that because the International Emergency Economic Powers Act grants the president sweeping powers in a “national emergency,” tariffs must fall within its scope. But Congress has spoken clearly on tariff authority, just not in that act.

Section 122 of the Trade Act of........

© The Hill