Two recent updates. One, a recent New York Times study has concluded that the federal appeals judges nominated by Trump have overwhelmingly voted for him to overrule lower court judges. Second, the Supreme Court has not yet ruled in the pending case concerning Trump’s reciprocal tariffs, but he continues to threaten disaster (Greenland and the use of other statutory authorities). If Trump loses, he has other statutory provisions he can utilize — but they are more restrictive and require administration studies and actions.

     To me, the suspicion is that the Supreme Court, may well overrule the lower courts. We’ll see soon enough ………….

……………………………………………………

“President Trump promised to fill the appeals courts with “my judges.” They have formed a nearly united phalanx to defend his agenda from legal challenges …. President Trump has found a powerful but obscure bulwark in the appeals court judges he appointed during his first term. They have voted overwhelmingly in his favor when his administration’s actions have been challenged in court in his current term.” “Trump’s ‘Superstar’ Appellate Judges Have Voted 133 to 12 in His Favor.” New York Times (1.12.26).

“Company executives, customs brokers and trade lawyers are bracing for a potential fight over obtaining perhaps $150 billion in refunds from the U.S. government for duties already paid by importers if Trump loses. However, some companies anticipate that even if the court invalidates Trump’s tariffs, Trump will not make it easy for them to get refunds. It’s not in the government’s DNA to give back money. And Trump would not want to give back money. ‘“ US Supreme Court: No ruling on Trump tariffs Friday.” Reuters (Jan. 9, 2026).

“The Greenland episode puts in sharp relief how open-ended Mr. Trump’s claim of tariff emergency authority is. He can declare an emergency on his own, he can decide which countries and goods he can hit with the border taxes, and at what rate. This means he can use tariffs essentially whenever he wants for whatever reason he wants. Congress gave him no such expansive power under IEEPA or any other statute. Tariff apologists will say the Greenland tariffs show the uses of border taxes for foreign policy, but the taxing power is Congress’s under the Constitution unless expressly delegated to the President. U.S. trade rep Jamieson Greer said Monday that if the Supreme Court overturns Mr. Trump’s tariffs, the President will quickly rely on other tariff authorities. But those delegations are more limited on what goods, for what reason, and for how long they can be imposed. They don’t allow tariffs for any emergency that Mr. Trump conjures for whatever political purposes he desires.” “Trump Tariff Editorial.” Wall Street Journal (Jan. 20, 2026).

“The president can draw on other powerful tariff laws that allow him to impose import taxes on various products or countries’ exports. But those laws typically require either an investigation, a report to be prepared, or an economic or national security rationale, meaning Mr. Trump would have less flexibility to threaten tariffs at a whim. … Mr. Trump had other alternatives, like Section 301, which he used in his first term to impose tariffs on Chinese exports, and which had survived many legal challenges. The president could also impose tariffs using Section 232, a national security statute, Section 122, a legal authority that relates to balance of payments issues, or Section 338, which allows the United States to respond when another country uniquely discriminates against it.” “Trump’s Response to S. Ct. Loss.” New York Times (January 20, 2026),

“The president’s quick reversal on tariffs over Greenland was another sign of his willingness to rip up the international order …. What he left in his wake was another destabilizing moment in global trade. And as those moments pile up, they are having their own effects — including increasing doubts about the value of cooperating with the president …. Adding more uncertainty to the picture is the fact that the Supreme Court is reviewing Mr. Trump’s use of an emergency law to issue many of his tariffs. If the Supreme Court rules against Mr. Trump, that could usher in another period of volatility as many of the president’s tariffs are struck down but then replaced with other levies …. The past year suggests that what Mr. Trump respects the most is a forceful response from a country able to wield economic damage to the United States, like China, not an effort toward cooperation. The president also appears to see little downside to the “madman theory” of foreign policy.” “Trump and Trade Chaos.” New York Times (January 22, 2026).