Yet again, the SCOTUS punted on the legality of Trump’s tarrifs. Polymarket is giving a 30% likelihood of a favorable ruling:
“Supreme Court rules in favor of Trump’s tariffs?”
This market will resolve to “Yes” if the Supreme Court of the United States issues a decision that reverses, vacates, or otherwise overturns the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s August 29, 2025 decision in V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, in which the Federal Circuit held that the tariffs imposed by Executive Orders 14193, 14194, 14195, 14257, and 14266 exceeded the President’s authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) by December 2026, 11:59 PM ET. Otherwise this market will resolve to “No.”
As seen during past disputes, the precise wording of the contract matters a lot, or as it’s said, ‘the devil is in the details’. On occasion, Polymarket will cancel/void bets because of disputes over the interpretation of outcomes. This makes me hesitant to bet. But also, I have no idea how the Court will rule. This is one of those situations where my forecasting methods aren’t helpful.
For example, someone writes in the comments on Polymarket:
So case closed? Not so fast. When something seems too obvious, often there are key details that are overlooked. Such optismitsm or certainty reminds me of the same sort of argument or rationale in early 2025 when many bettors and pundits were ‘100% certain’ where would be a Bitcoin reserve in 2025. A year later, there has been no talk of a Bitcoin reserve by the Trump administration, let alone an actual reserve, so I was again correct in predicting delay. The seemingly obvious prediction was the wrong one.
To address the comment, a tariff is a duty, not a tax, even though these are sometimes confused or conflated by pundits and laypeople alike. But the distinction matters and explains why the decision is fraught and not as obvious (from the anti-tariff side) as assumed. Congress grants the President broad powers, including levying some duties without Congressional approval. Past presidents (e.g. Obama and Biden) have imposed various tariffs without court resistance. Although largely forgotten today, in 1987, Reagan, without congressional approval, imposed 100% tariffs on select Japanese electronics.
Changes to federal or corporate tax rates obviously require congressional approval, but a duty occupies a legal grey area and is not categorically the same thing. Whereas taxes are not voluntary, companies and consumers can always choose to buy domestic alternatives or from countries unaffected by tariffs. Tariffs can have the same perceived effect as a tax on consumers by raising prices on certain goods, but it’s not the same thing as a tax. Indirect taxes have never been ruled unconstitutional. The point is, the issue is not as clear-cut as commonly framed.
However, the tariffs have not helped Trump’s approval ratings. Most Americans see it as an indirect tax or are indifferent. It’s not just the left: even on the ‘dissident right’, people understand that the tariffs are not without a tradeoff. For example, from the post “No, Fuentes hasn’t already won”,
What about the tariffs? Aren’t those an olive branch to the fringe-right? Not really. Many on the online or dissident-right have criticized the tariffs as being an ineffective or a shallow populist appeal to economic illiterates that will not move the needle on anything, or will make things worse, such as worsening inflation and disproportionately hurting small businesses
What good does it to ‘increase US revenue’ when it comes out of people’s purchasing power. The affordability situation is going to get worse. Tariffs do not help in this regard, and many people know this. Trump’s ego is invested in tariffs, even if the reception is lukewarm or negative.
.