{"id":136241,"date":"2025-11-03T17:43:12","date_gmt":"2025-11-04T01:43:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/11\/03\/might-the-supreme-court-save-trumps-economic-chestnuts\/"},"modified":"2025-11-03T17:43:12","modified_gmt":"2025-11-04T01:43:12","slug":"might-the-supreme-court-save-trumps-economic-chestnuts","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/11\/03\/might-the-supreme-court-save-trumps-economic-chestnuts\/","title":{"rendered":"Might The Supreme Court Save Trump\u2019s Economic Chestnuts?"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"
(Photo by Win McNamee\/Getty Images)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Believe it or not, President Donald Trump is in serious trouble.<\/p>\n

Whether his unfavorability ratings for handling the economy are\u00a055%<\/a>,\u00a057%<\/a>, or\u00a060%<\/a>, those ratings are about as deep underwater as a U.S. president can be.\u00a0And that unfavorability is on the very issue that he rode to the White House a year ago.\u00a0Trump\u2019s unpopularity could reduce his control over the Republican Party (because members of Congress need not fear Trump so much) or show up in next year\u2019s midterm elections (which would end Trump\u2019s legislative hopes and result in a spate of new investigations).<\/p>\n

What\u2019s a poor, beleaguered president to do?<\/p>\n

Remarkably, the Supreme Court may come to Trump\u2019s rescue.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court will hear argument later this week on whether Trump has the constitutional and statutory authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).\u00a0I\u2019m no expert on trade law, but I can read\u00a0Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, which grants Congress the authority to \u201cregulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states.\u201d With that as a starting point, I wouldn\u2019t be shocked if the Supreme Court holds, a few weeks or months from now, that Trump improperly imposed sweeping tariffs for reasons such as \u201cBrazil is prosecuting Jair Bolsonaro\u201d and \u201cI didn\u2019t like the\u00a0advertisement<\/a>\u00a0the Province of Ontario ran during the World Series.\u201d<\/p>\n

What then?\u00a0What if Trump loses in the Supreme Court?<\/p>\n

Trump isn\u2019t one to accept losing with grace.<\/p>\n

But assume for the moment that Trump doesn\u2019t give a speech telling his supporters to attack the Supreme Court building and hang John Roberts.<\/p>\n

Assume Trump doesn\u2019t tell the Supreme Court, \u201cScrew you,\u201d and maintain the tariffs despite the ruling.<\/p>\n

A normal president might retreat to statutes other than the IEEPA that grant the authority to impose tariffs.\u00a0Trump might try, for example, to impose tariffs under\u00a0Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (for unfair trade practices) or Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (for tariffs on national security grounds).\u00a0Neither of these statues, however, gives Trump the unbridled power to impose sweeping tariffs that he\u2019s claimed under the IEEPA.<\/p>\n

A normal president might ask Congress to approve the tariffs that he has in mind.\u00a0That would be hopeless, however, even in more traditional times.\u00a0Republicans have historically been free traders; at least a few would stand by their principles.\u00a0And Democrats would never give Trump this legislative win.<\/p>\n

Suppose Trump does the unexpected and simply accepts the loss:\u00a0\u201cI\u2019m right on tariffs, but the low-IQ RINOs on the Supreme Court don\u2019t understand the Constitution.\u00a0Thank you for your attention to this matter.\u201d<\/p>\n

Think what that would do to cure Trump\u2019s polling ills on economic issues.<\/p>\n

With tariffs reduced to their pre-Liberation Day levels, international trade could flourish again.\u00a0We\u2019d no longer owe 50% more on Brazilian coffee or 15% more for French wines.\u00a0Prices probably wouldn\u2019t drop dramatically, but the inflation numbers would improve a little.<\/p>\n

At the same time, the uncertainty hanging over the market, because Trump now claims the authority to impose tariffs at whim, would disappear.\u00a0Companies could start building and hiring again, because they\u2019d know that future tariffs could be imposed only after going through an intelligent process.\u00a0The stock market would surely get a lift.<\/p>\n

And \u2014 my point at last! \u2014 the Supreme Court would have helped solve Trump\u2019s economic woes.\u00a0By eliminating the president\u2019s unfettered ability to impose tariffs, the Supreme Court would simultaneously have reduced the pressures on inflation and employment that make people disapprove of Trump\u2019s handling the economy.<\/p>\n

All of this depends, of course, on the Supreme Court standing up to Trump, by invalidating his tariffs, and Trump then standing down to the Supreme Court, by begrudgingly accepting its decision.<\/p>\n

Perhaps those concepts are delusional, but they just might redound to Trump\u2019s benefit.<\/p>\n

\n

Mark\u00a0Herrmann\u00a0spent 17 years as a partner at a leading international law firm and later oversaw litigation, compliance and employment matters at a large international company. He is the author of\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>The Curmudgeon\u2019s Guide to Practicing Law<\/em><\/strong><\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>Drug and Device Product Liability Litigation Strategy<\/em><\/strong><\/a>\u00a0(affiliate links). You can reach him by email at\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>inhouse@abovethelaw.com<\/em><\/strong><\/a>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The post Might The Supreme Court Save Trump\u2019s Economic Chestnuts?<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"\"
(Photo by Win McNamee\/Getty Images)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Believe it or not, President Donald Trump is in serious trouble.<\/p>\n

Whether his unfavorability ratings for handling the economy are\u00a055%<\/a>,\u00a057%<\/a>, or\u00a060%<\/a>, those ratings are about as deep underwater as a U.S. president can be.\u00a0And that unfavorability is on the very issue that he rode to the White House a year ago.\u00a0Trump\u2019s unpopularity could reduce his control over the Republican Party (because members of Congress need not fear Trump so much) or show up in next year\u2019s midterm elections (which would end Trump\u2019s legislative hopes and result in a spate of new investigations).<\/p>\n

What\u2019s a poor, beleaguered president to do?<\/p>\n

Remarkably, the Supreme Court may come to Trump\u2019s rescue.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court will hear argument later this week on whether Trump has the constitutional and statutory authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).\u00a0I\u2019m no expert on trade law, but I can read\u00a0Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, which grants Congress the authority to \u201cregulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states.\u201d With that as a starting point, I wouldn\u2019t be shocked if the Supreme Court holds, a few weeks or months from now, that Trump improperly imposed sweeping tariffs for reasons such as \u201cBrazil is prosecuting Jair Bolsonaro\u201d and \u201cI didn\u2019t like the\u00a0advertisement<\/a>\u00a0the Province of Ontario ran during the World Series.\u201d<\/p>\n

What then?\u00a0What if Trump loses in the Supreme Court?<\/p>\n

Trump isn\u2019t one to accept losing with grace.<\/p>\n

But assume for the moment that Trump doesn\u2019t give a speech telling his supporters to attack the Supreme Court building and hang John Roberts.<\/p>\n

Assume Trump doesn\u2019t tell the Supreme Court, \u201cScrew you,\u201d and maintain the tariffs despite the ruling.<\/p>\n

A normal president might retreat to statutes other than the IEEPA that grant the authority to impose tariffs.\u00a0Trump might try, for example, to impose tariffs under\u00a0Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (for unfair trade practices) or Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (for tariffs on national security grounds).\u00a0Neither of these statues, however, gives Trump the unbridled power to impose sweeping tariffs that he\u2019s claimed under the IEEPA.<\/p>\n

A normal president might ask Congress to approve the tariffs that he has in mind.\u00a0That would be hopeless, however, even in more traditional times.\u00a0Republicans have historically been free traders; at least a few would stand by their principles.\u00a0And Democrats would never give Trump this legislative win.<\/p>\n

Suppose Trump does the unexpected and simply accepts the loss:\u00a0\u201cI\u2019m right on tariffs, but the low-IQ RINOs on the Supreme Court don\u2019t understand the Constitution.\u00a0Thank you for your attention to this matter.\u201d<\/p>\n

Think what that would do to cure Trump\u2019s polling ills on economic issues.<\/p>\n

With tariffs reduced to their pre-Liberation Day levels, international trade could flourish again.\u00a0We\u2019d no longer owe 50% more on Brazilian coffee or 15% more for French wines.\u00a0Prices probably wouldn\u2019t drop dramatically, but the inflation numbers would improve a little.<\/p>\n

At the same time, the uncertainty hanging over the market, because Trump now claims the authority to impose tariffs at whim, would disappear.\u00a0Companies could start building and hiring again, because they\u2019d know that future tariffs could be imposed only after going through an intelligent process.\u00a0The stock market would surely get a lift.<\/p>\n

And \u2014 my point at last! \u2014 the Supreme Court would have helped solve Trump\u2019s economic woes.\u00a0By eliminating the president\u2019s unfettered ability to impose tariffs, the Supreme Court would simultaneously have reduced the pressures on inflation and employment that make people disapprove of Trump\u2019s handling the economy.<\/p>\n

All of this depends, of course, on the Supreme Court standing up to Trump, by invalidating his tariffs, and Trump then standing down to the Supreme Court, by begrudgingly accepting its decision.<\/p>\n

Perhaps those concepts are delusional, but they just might redound to Trump\u2019s benefit.<\/p>\n

\n

Mark\u00a0Herrmann\u00a0spent 17 years as a partner at a leading international law firm and later oversaw litigation, compliance and employment matters at a large international company. He is the author of\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>The Curmudgeon\u2019s Guide to Practicing Law<\/em><\/strong><\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>Drug and Device Product Liability Litigation Strategy<\/em><\/strong><\/a>\u00a0(affiliate links). You can reach him by email at\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>[email\u00a0protected]<\/em><\/strong><\/a>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

(Photo by Win McNamee\/Getty Images) Believe it or not, President Donald Trump is in serious trouble. Whether his unfavorability ratings for handling the economy are\u00a055%,\u00a057%, or\u00a060%, those ratings are about as deep underwater as a U.S. president can be.\u00a0And that unfavorability is on the very issue that he rode to the White House a year […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":136242,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-136241","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/xira.com\/p\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/donald-trump-GettyImages-1152627372-LfJetY.jpg?fit=1024%2C683&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/136241","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=136241"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/136241\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/136242"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=136241"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=136241"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=136241"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}