We may not know the result for weeks or months but we often get a hint based on the questioning by the judges.
I often turn to SCOTUSblog for in depth insight and they again did not disappoint:
Snip:
In the tariffs cases, it also was striking how many of the amicus briefs against the Trump administration were filed by conservative groups. I cannot think of another case involving challenges to Trump’s actions where so many notable conservative groups filed briefs against his position. The amicus briefs arguing that the Trump tariffs are invalid included ones from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Washington Legal Foundation, the Cato Institute, the National Taxpayers Union Foundation, and the Goldwater Institute. There, of course, also were briefs challenging the tariffs by entities regarded as liberal, such as the Brennan Center, and by the attorney generals of California and Washington state.
That’s not really the question before the Court, though. The question in front of them is whether the grant of power to the President to “regulate” international trade in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act includes the power to enforce tariffs. The issue of whether Congress could grant the President that power does not appear to have been argued by the parties - merely whether the IEEPA did include that power in the ones granted to the President.
Is this the rule/law that set a time limit on it? I seem to recall the “emergency powers” could only be for -I think- 30 days. If so, then all the tariffs should expire anyway.
You’re thinking of something else - although it is a something else that’s come up a lot in discussions of the tariffs.
There are a number of laws that explicitly do give the President to impose tariffs in specific situations: emergencies, dumping/trade disputes, etc. Those laws tend to be limited in scope and have time limits.
The IEEPA that the President based all these emergency tariffs on is much more general and doesn’t have time limits - which is why he used it. But it also doesn’t explicitly mention tariffs, which is why the actions are vulnerable to being challenged,
If SCOTUS rules against the Administration, they could re-impose some of the tariffs under the various other statutory grants of tariff authority. But they’ll be time-limited and more constrained.
Court seemed skeptical. I listened to some of it and my impression was that the judges were a little more balanced - I started to get a bit worried - but I did not listen to all of it.
Betting sites are giving 70% odds of the prior rulings being affirmed (a loss for the POTUS).