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

When, on Jan. 9, a Supreme Court decision day came and went without an opinion on the legality of President Donald Trump’s signature economic policy, deep and wide tariffs, observers exhaled.

The justices’ decision on whether Trump can levy widespread, global and indefinite tariffs using the International Economic Emergency Powers Act, or IEEPA, had been expected as early as the end of last year, an expedited ruling following oral arguments in the case on Nov. 5. But no tariffs decision came in December. When the Court announced it would release opinions on Jan. 9, many predicted that the decision in question was sure to be IEEPA. It wasn’t. The Court released another slate of SCOTUS opinions on Jan. 14. Still no tariffs ruling.

The case is about whether Trump has the power under the law to tariff countries for an indefinite period of time after making a national emergency declaration. Lawyers opposing the administration argued, among other things, that tariffs were not explicitly mentioned as a power afforded to the administration under the law in question, and that they amount to a tax on U.S. consumers. Congress holds the power of the purse and is the only body that can tax Americans; it’s a responsibility that, opponents argued, Congress would have had to have explicitly delegated.

Jan. 20, the third decision day of the year, arrived. Corporations and small businesses, global financial markets, industry attorneys and legal scholars watching the Court closely still have no decision in the Trump IEEPA tariffs case. 

What gives?

There are many theories bouncing around about what is going on here: Are conservative justices, who’ve been apt to rule in a way favorable to Trump’s administration but were skeptical of the government’s legal case during November oral arguments, giving the president more time to apply his tariffs using other, more constitutionally sound statutes? Are justices amenable to Trump’s overreach preparing to give him roundabout access to Congress’ power of the purse and taking time to concoct a legal theory that supports this perversion of the roles of different branches of government? Is aparticular justice (feel free to choose which one you think it could be) strategically dragging their feet as they write a long, drawn-out dissent?

Supreme Court scholars and constitutional law experts told TPM observers shouldn’t lend much credence to any such theories. Their biggest takeaway from the SCOTUS nondecision is that there is really no takeaway.

Four constitutional law scholars shared with TPM how they’re thinking about the timing of the Supreme Court’s IEEPA tariffs decision. 

Don’t Expect a Decision Quite Yet

“I don’t think the Court is ‘pushing off’ a ruling on the tariffs case; to the contrary, the norm for the Court historically has been to take its time, especially with big cases,” Stephen Vladeck, Supreme Court scholar and Georgetown University law professor, told TPM in an email. “I suspect the same is happening here — where the separate opinions just aren’t finalized yet. I’d thought all along that late February was probably the sweet spot for a decision here, and continue to believe the same.”

‘Nothing to See Here’

“If this was a normal case, I’d say there’s nothing to see here,” Michael C. Dorf, a constitutional law professor at Cornell University, told TPM. “So I suspect that they’re treating it as not presenting a kind of emergency.”

That SCOTUS hasn’t issued a decision in the IEEPA case, just over two months after hearing oral arguments, is in line with the Court’s normal timing on large, complex and consequential cases, Dorf said.

Because the administration has expressed in public its ability and plan to impose tariffs using other, less controversial statutes, Dorf posited justices might not feel rushed to rule on this case. And about the theories swirling around regarding a perceived delay by the justices?

“It’s only speculation. I think these are plausible accounts, but until they do what they’re going to do, nobody really knows,” Dorf said. 

In the end, regardless of timing, “I think they probably will vote to invalidate the tariffs,” Dorf said.

Court ‘Resists’ The Idea That It’s Involved In Day-to-Day Politics

Constitutional law scholar Carolyn Shapiro put it plainly. 

“I read nothing into the timing at this stage,” she told TPM.

Tariffs are a defining political issue of Trump’s second term, and, because of the way they tend to inflate prices for U.S. consumers, they were a critical aspect of the “affordability” conversation that was central to the 2025 off year election and may be key to the 2026 midterms. The Supreme Court, however, sometimes makes a point of not caring about such things, said Shapiro, founder and co-director of the Institute on the Supreme Court of the United States at Chicago-Kent College of Law.

“The Court very much resists the idea that what it’s doing is political in a number of senses, but one sense is in the kind of daily work of politics,” Shapiro said. “So I think that also could be some of it, that for some of them they want to convey this view of themselves as being somehow writing ‘for the ages,’” she continued, quoting a phrase Justice Neil Gorsuch used during oral arguments in the 2024 presidential immunity case.

The view that the Court’s actions are detached from daily politics isn’t necessarily rooted in reality, Shapiro emphasized.

“I want to be clear that they are, of course, in the middle of the daily politics and they’re putting themselves there more and more with all the stuff they’re doing on the shadow docket,” she said.

Shapiro said it’s hard to know exactly how justices would rule, but highlighted that skepticism from justices during November oral arguments suggested Trump could lose the case.

“I don’t think it’s been that long, honestly. I just don’t,” she said. “They sometimes move quickly and, often when we think that 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 College of Law, does not view the Supreme Court’s failure to publish an opinion on this case as a “delay.”

“Oftentimes, the Court can 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, ordinarily, this would not be considered a delay.”

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

“But again, given the complexity of the case and the schedule on which [the Supreme Court] normally operates, this is not at all an unusual delay.”

He said it’s hard to tell whether SCOTUS’ decision not to rule more quickly favors either side. The time it takes to write and finalize majority decisions, concurrent opinions, and dissents are regular procedural obligations that impact the timing of the justices’ ruling.

“It’s certainly possible that the delay signals that the Court might rule for the administration,” Berger said. “On the other hand, it’s always dangerous to read too much into oral arguments, but at oral arguments some of the justices who often vote with this administration seemed pretty skeptical of their position.”