"After all, Trump's lawyers told the court that speed was of the essence on an issue central to the Republican president's economic agenda. They pointed to a statement from Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent warning that the "longer a final ruling is delayed, the greater the risk of economic disruption." But nearly three months have elapsed since arguments in the closely watched case, and the court isn't scheduled 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 tariffs' legality at arguments in November. But the timeline for deciding the case now looks more or less typical and could reflect the normal back-and-forth that occurs not just in the biggest cases but in almost all the disputes the justices hear."
"One possible explanation, said Carter Phillips, a lawyer with 91 arguments before the high court, "is that the court is more evenly divided than appeared to be the case at oral argument and the fifth vote is wavering." Even if the majority opinion has been drafted and more or less agreed to by five or more members of the court, a separate opinion, probably in dissent, could slow things down, Phillips said."
Trump's lawyers urged rapid resolution, citing Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent's warning that delays increase the risk of economic disruption. Nearly three months have passed since oral arguments, and the court has no imminent public meeting scheduled. Several justices expressed skepticism about the tariffs' legality during arguments. The current timeline appears consistent with ordinary judicial deliberation and internal back-and-forth that occurs in many cases. Supreme Court practitioners and law professors rejected the notion of deliberate stalling for political purposes. A plausible explanation is an evenly divided court with a wavering fifth vote, and separate opinions can prolong issuance of decisions.
Read at Fortune
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]