Three months after rapidly scheduled arguments, Supreme Court has yet to decide on Trump’s tariffs

WASHINGTON– When the Supreme Court granted an unusually quick hearing on President Donald Trump’s tariffs, an equally quick resolution seemed possible.

After all, Trump’s lawyers told the court that speed was essential on an issue central to the president’s economic agenda. They pointed to a statement from Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent warning that “the longer a final decision is delayed, the greater the risk of economic disruption.”

But nearly three months have passed since arguments in the closely watched case and the court is not expected to meet in public for more than three weeks.

No one knows for sure what’s going on among the nine justices, several of whom expressed skepticism about the legality of the tariffs during the November arguments. But the timetable for deciding the case now appears more or less typical and could reflect the normal back-and-forth that occurs not only in the most important cases, but in almost all litigation heard by the justices.

Several Supreme Court practitioners and law professors have scoffed at the idea that the justices are dragging their feet on tariffs, delaying a potentially uncomfortable ruling against Trump.

“People suspect this sort of thing from time to time, but I don’t know of any cases where we have more than speculation,” said Jonathan Adler, a law professor at the College of William. & Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia.

The calendar alone cannot indicate one result or another either.

One possible explanation, said Carter Phillips, a lawyer who has argued 91 times before the high court, “is that the court is more evenly divided than appeared to be the case during oral argument and the fifth vote is wavering.”

Even though the majority opinion was written and more or less agreed to by five or more members of the court, a separate, likely dissenting opinion could slow things down, Phillips said.

Last week, the court issued two opinions in cases argued in October. All nine judges approved the result, a situation that usually allows decisions to be rendered relatively quickly. But a separate opinion in each case likely delayed the decision.

The court generally moves more slowly in controversial cases, perhaps because of the flood of emergency appeals the administration has made to the justices. The first case argued was not decided until January of this year. Usually this happens in December or even November.

Over the past 20 years, the average time to obtain an opinion from the Supreme Court was just over three months, according to data collected by Adam Feldman, creator of Empirical SCOTUS. The deadline has lengthened in recent years, with the court releasing half or more of its cases in June.

Decision times can vary considerably. The court can move quickly, especially in cases where deadlines are tight: the landmark Bush v. Gore case that effectively decided the 2000 election lasted just over a single day. The recent TikTok case lasted seven days.

At the higher level, when judges meet their own deadlines, cases can take much longer to resolve. Gundy v. United States, a case argued in 2018 over how the sex offender registry is administered, took more than eight months to resolve.

Major decisions on expanding gun rights, overturning Roe v. Wade and Ending Affirmative Action in College Admissions was issued six to eight months after the business debate.

A second major case in which the court has picked up its pace regarding Louisiana redistricting and the future of a key provision of the Voting Rights Act is also undecided so far.

The tariff case has become all the more urgent as the consequences of the Trump administration’s policies have been felt in real time, in both positive and negative ways.

“Like many, I had hoped that the Supreme Court would issue a rushed decision,” said Marc Busch, an expert on international trade policy and law at Georgetown University. “But it’s not a surprise in the sense that they have until June and a lot of issues to sort out.”

The separation of powers issues at the heart of the case are complicated. Whatever the majority decides, there will likely be some dissent and both sides will carefully calibrate their writings.

“Ultimately, it’s the language that will make this make more or less sense,” he said.

Meanwhile, as the justices weigh the case, Trump continues to invoke the threat of tariffs, extol their virtues and call the case the court’s most important.

“I hope that, like many people, the justices have observed the tariff threats on Greenland and realize the gravity of this moment,” Busch said.