‘A Victory for the Rule of Law’: 3 Experts Assess How Much the Court Reined In Trump

By Binyamin AppelbaumJosh BarroCatherine Rampell and Stephen Stromberg

Mr. Appelbaum is writes about economics for Opinion. Mr. Barro is a contributing writer in Opinion. Ms. Rampell is the economics editor of The Bulwark and an anchor for MS NOW. Mr. Stromberg is an editor in Opinion.

In a complex decision, the Supreme Court on Friday struck down tariffs President Trump had imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, IEEPA for short. Stephen Stromberg, an editor in Opinion, convened the Opinion writer Binyamin Appelbaum, the Opinion contributing writer Josh Barro and the economics commentator Catherine Rampell to discuss the 6-3 ruling, whether it will curb the president and what it means for the economy.

Stephen Stromberg: We have a tariff ruling. Binya, is it fair to say that the decision is about what most observers expected?

Binyamin Appelbaum: Yeah. It was pretty clear from the oral arguments that most justices were skeptical, at best, of the Trump administration’s claim that the president could impose tariffs on any country, for any reason — or, more often, no reason at all — for any length of time.

But a lot of us were still waiting to see whether the court would actually check Trump — something it has been reluctant to do.

Josh Barro: Most of the justices did appear skeptical of the administration’s broad assertion of tariff authority, but one of the questions looming over this decision was how a majority of the court might reach a decision to rein in President Trump.

The liberals on the court have generally resisted the “major questions” approach that the conservatives have used to block creative executive policymaking in other areas, such as carbon emissions regulation. The conservatives have said that Congress has to be especially clear when it grants a sweeping power to the executive, while the liberals have been more willing to let administrations read statutes creatively. Here, the court got to a majority by agreeing to disagree about the basis of the ruling: Three of the conservative justices found the claimed tariff powers violated the major questions doctrine. The three liberals said that IEEPA simply didn’t authorize the president to impose tariffs and there was no need for the court to conduct a major questions analysis.

Subscribe to The Times to read as many articles as you like.

Binyamin Appelbaum is the lead writer on economics and business for The Times editorial board. He is based in Washington. @BCAppelbaum • Facebook

Stephen Stromberg is a Times opinion editor, focused on politics and economics. He has covered U.S. politics and policy since 2001. He joined The Times in 2025 from The Washington Post, where he was deputy editor of the opinion section.

© The New York Times