What Does It Mean That SCOTUS Hasn’t Ruled on IEEPA Tariffs? Nothing, Experts Said.

When, on January 9, one Supreme Court decision followed one without an opinion on the legality of President Donald Trump’s signature economic policy of high and extensive tariffs, observers exhaled.

The justices’ decision on whether Trump can impose widespread, global, indefinite tariffs using the International Economic Emergency Powers Act, or IEEPA, was expected as early as late last year, a decision expedited following oral arguments in the case on Nov. 5. But no pricing decision was made in December. When the Court announced that it would issue its opinions on January 9, many predicted that the decision in question would certainly be IEEPA. This was not the case. The Court issued another set of SCOTUS opinions on January 14. Still no decision on pricing.

The case centers on whether Trump has the authority under the law to impose tariffs on countries for an indefinite period after declaring a national emergency. Lawyers opposing the administration argued, among other things, that the tariffs were not explicitly mentioned as a power granted to the administration under the law in question and that they amounted to a tax on American consumers. Congress holds the power of the purse and is the only body capable of taxing Americans; It’s a responsibility that opponents say Congress should have explicitly delegated.

January 20, the third decision day of the year, has arrived. Big business and small business, global financial markets, industry lawyers and legal scholars who are closely watching the Court still have no decision in the Trump case over IEEPA tariffs.

What gives?

There are many theories about what’s going on here: Are the conservative justices, who have tended to rule in a way favorable to the Trump administration but were skeptical of the government’s legal arguments during oral arguments in November, giving the president more time to implement his tariffs using other, more constitutionally sound laws? Are the justices sensitive to Trump’s excesses, preparing to give him backdoor access to congressional power and taking the time to concoct a legal theory that supports this perversion of the roles of the various branches of government? Is a particular justice system (feel free to choose which one you think it might be) strategically dragging its feet as it writes a long, drawn-out dissent?

Supreme Court scholars and constitutional law experts said TPM watchers should not give much credence to such theories. Their biggest takeaway from SCOTUS’s non-decision is that there’s really nothing to take away.

Four constitutional law scholars shared with TPM their thoughts on the timing of the Supreme Court’s decision on IEEPA tariffs.

Don’t expect a decision yet

“I do not think the Court is ‘putting off’ a decision on the tariff case; on the contrary, the Court’s standard has always been to take its time, especially in important cases,” Stephen Vladeck, a Supreme Court scholar and law professor at Georgetown University, said in an email to TPM. “I suspect the same thing is happening here, where the separate opinions just aren’t finalized yet. I always thought that late February was probably the ideal time to make a decision here, and I continue to believe the same thing.”

“Nothing to see here”

“If this were a normal case, I would say there is nothing to see here,” Michael C. Dorf, a constitutional law professor at Cornell University, told TPM. “So I suspect they view this as not presenting some sort of emergency.”

The fact that SCOTUS has not issued a decision in the IEEPA case, just over two months after hearing oral arguments, is consistent with the Court’s normal schedule for large, complex and high-consequence cases, Dorf said.

Because the administration has publicly expressed its ability and intent to impose tariffs using other, less controversial laws, Dorf speculated that the justices might not feel rushed to rule on this case. What about the theories circulating regarding perceived delay on the part of the judges?

“It’s just speculation. I think they’re plausible accounts, but until they do what they’re going to do, no one really knows,” Dorf said.

Ultimately, regardless of when that happens, “I think they’ll probably vote to strike down the tariffs,” Dorf said.

The Court ‘resists’ the idea that it is involved in everyday politics

Constitutional law scholar Carolyn Shapiro made this clear.

“I haven’t read anything about the timing at this point,” she told TPM.

Tariffs are a defining policy issue of Trump’s second term and, because of the way they tend to inflate prices for American consumers, they have been a key aspect of the affordability debate that was at the heart of the 2025 election and could be key to the 2026 midterm elections. The Supreme Court, however, sometimes makes a point of not worrying about such things, said Shapiro, founder and co-director of the United States Supreme Court Institute at Chicago-Kent College of Law.

“The Court categorically resists the idea that what it does is political in a number of senses, but one of them is about everyday political work,” Shapiro said. “So I think that might also be part of it, that for some of them, they want to convey this vision of themselves as being sort of writers ‘for the ages,’” she continued, citing a phrase that Justice Neil Gorsuch used during oral arguments in the 2024 presidential immunity case.

The idea that the Court’s actions are detached from everyday politics is not necessarily rooted in reality, Shapiro pointed out.

“I want to be clear that they are, of course, in the middle of everyday politics and they are getting into it more and more with everything they are doing on the shadow file,” she said.

Shapiro said it was difficult to know exactly how the justices would rule, but noted that the justices’ skepticism during oral arguments in November suggested Trump could lose the case.

“Honestly, I don’t think it’s been that long. It’s just not the case,” she said. “They sometimes move quickly, and a lot of times when we think they should, they don’t.”

Despite the significant economic consequences, “this is not at all an unusual delay”

Eric Berger, a constitutional law professor at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln School of Law, doesn’t consider the Supreme Court’s failure to issue an opinion on the case a “delay.”

“Often the Court may hear arguments on a case in October or November and not issue a decision until May or June, or even early July,” Berger, who studies judicial decision-making, told TPM. “So normally this would not be considered a delay.”

The implications of a case that could see billions of dollars collected by the US government returned to companies are not ordinary, however, Berger acknowledged.

“But again, given the complexity of the case and the timeline [the Supreme Court] works normally, this is not an unusual delay at all.

He said it was difficult to say whether the SCOTUS decision not to rule more quickly favored either side. The time required to draft and finalize majority decisions, concurring opinions, and dissents are regular procedural obligations that impact the timing of the justices’ decision.

“It is certainly possible that this delay indicates that the Court may rule in favor of the administration,” Berger said. “On the other hand, it is always dangerous to read too much into oral arguments, but during oral arguments, some of the justices who often vote with this administration seemed rather skeptical of their position.”