Friday's blockbuster ruling on tariffs was hardly welcomed by the Trump administration, but it was also widely expected. The Supreme Court clearly established in its 6-3 decision that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not afford presidents authority to issue sweeping, unilateral tariffs like those imposed by President Trump over the last year.
The justices fractured on other issues. And they left one issue conspicuously unaddressed: What happens to the hundreds of billions of dollars collected from these tariffs so far?
Many of us predicted that the administration would lose this fight. That view was reinforced after oral arguments, when a majority of justices raised possible reasons why the president might not possess this power.
Then again, he does possess similar powers under other laws, which the administration has already announced he will use.
Although Trump said he was "ashamed" of the conservative justices who ruled against him, their opinion is consistent with the conservative interpretive approach taken in prior statutory cases.
The majority defended Congress's core power over the purse, maintaining the balance among the branches of our tripartite system. There were good-faith arguments on both sides, but these conservative justices ruled regardless of the political or practical repercussions, based on what they believed was demanded by the Constitution.
The most surprising votes were not the three conservatives but the three liberal justices, who historically have not been deterred by ambiguity in statutes in deferring to presidents. They have repeatedly also found delegated authority in independent agencies without worrying too much about the separation of powers.
Democratic politicians openly celebrated from the loss. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) seemed gleeful over the idea that the country will have to incur massive penalties, costs that could undermine the current economic growth figures. Newsom, who has led his state into a deep deficit and triggered an exodus of taxpayers, eagerly called for economic penalties for the country: "Every dollar unlawfully taken must be refunded immediately -- with interest. Cough up!"
In reality, the tariffs are not going away. Trump will just have to rely on less nimble laws, but he can pursue the same policies in the name of other causes, such as securing greater market access and other concessions from foreign governments.
So what about "coughing up" those past tariff dollars? Newsom may ultimately be disappointed. Unless members want to further add to the deficit, Congress should intervene to uphold the tariffs retroactively. But that may not be possible.
Democratic politicians like Newsom are not likely to want to help Trump, even if that means wounding the national economy and the federal budget. But this may offer Republicans a unique opportunity to force such a vote. Do Democrats truly want to vote to give hundreds of billions back? There are already more than 1,000 claimants.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh dealt with the problem directly in his forceful dissent. He criticized the majority for its silence on whether or how such refunds would be made. Most pointedly, Kavanaugh noted that the federal government "may be required to refund billions of dollars to importers who paid the ... tariffs, even though some importers may have already passed on costs to consumers or others."
In other words, importers could be double-compensated if they are repaid, since, in many cases, the public paid for the tariffs in the form of higher prices. That is precisely what Democrats have been arguing for months, claiming that prices were raised to cover the added cost of the tariffs.
Trump could therefore further force the issue by offering to pay the money directly to taxpayers as a tariff bonus as part of legislation that would ratify the tariffs. Would Democrats vote against such checks for average citizens?
Even if Congress does nothing, this will take years to sort out. In the meantime, the administration has already utilized the other tariff powers recognized by the court.
What is most striking is how the very people calling to pack the Supreme Court are celebrating this decision. The court has once again shown that it continues to exercise independent judgment on important questions. Yet figures from Eric Holder and various liberal pundits will continue to demand court-packing as soon as Democrats retake control of Congress. The tariff decision exposes the dishonesty of their plan.
Democratic strategist James Carville recently cut away the pretense: "I'm going to tell you what's going to happen," he said. "A Democrat is going to be elected in 2028. You know that. I know that. ... They're going to recommend that the number of Supreme Court justices go from nine to 13. That's going to happen, people."
It is all about power and radically changing our political system. It does not matter that the Supreme Court continues to rule unanimously or near-unanimously in most cases. It also does not matter that the court continues to rule both for and against the president based on precedent, not politics.
For some, this decision is one of the most resounding demonstrations of the court's continued independence. But if these Democratic politicians and pundits have their way, that independence may not last much longer.