Why Trump's Supreme Court Loss Was Actually a Win for Both Sides

The Supreme Court just delivered what everyone's calling a "devastating blow" to Donald Trump. Media outlets are celebrating a "resounding smackdown" and the judiciary's "declaration of independence." Trump himself warned the ruling would "literally destroy the United States of America." But beneath this dramatic theater lies a counterintuitive truth: both the defeated president and the victorious Court actually benefit from this decision.

A Limited Legal Victory

Despite its "blockbuster" appearance, the tariffs ruling barely scratches Trump's agenda. The Court's holding is surgically narrow: one specific statute—the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)—can't be used to impose tariffs. That's it.

The decision's 170 pages are largely filled with academic debates over the major-questions doctrine, requiring Congress to "speak clearly" when delegating broad authority. But this was theoretical posturing—all six majority justices agreed on the outcome regardless of how this doctrine applied.

More importantly, Trump has alternatives. The Trade Act of 1974 provides another pathway for tariffs, which his team has been preparing to use. J.P. Morgan has been telling clients for months that revoking IEEPA tariffs won't materially impact effective tariff rates. The Court essentially forced a detour, not a roadblock.

The targeted tariffs were also politically problematic—unpopular with many Reagan-era Republicans and criticized by economists across party lines as poorly designed to reduce trade deficits. They functioned as a tax on ordinary American households rather than an effective manufacturing revival tool.

The Court's Calculated Independence

Here's where it gets interesting. The Roberts Court desperately needed this victory—not legally, but politically. Public approval has plummeted, especially among Democrats and independents who view the justices as partisan Trump enablers. Legal scholars now speak of a "post-legitimacy Court."

Global research on constitutional democracies shows that judicial confidence depends on perceived independence. The Court needed to demonstrate autonomy, and the tariffs case offered the perfect opportunity: high symbolic value with limited legal stakes.

By showcasing independence now, the Court earns political capital it can spend later on decisions that enable rather than restrain Trump. This dynamic plays out in declining democracies worldwide.

In Hong Kong, the Court of Final Appeal protects LGBTQ rights while abandoning political protest protections. Legal scholar Rehan Abeyratne argues this isn't coincidental—the LGBTQ rulings maintain faith in judicial independence from Chinese control.

India's Supreme Court follows a similar pattern, decriminalizing same-sex conduct while upholding Narendra Modi's increasingly repressive policies.

Trump's Strategic Defeat

Paradoxically, Trump also benefits from this loss. Modern authoritarianism operates through "stealth" tactics—subverting constitutional democracy's substance while maintaining its forms. This approach offers key advantages: less international criticism and reduced market volatility.

Sympathetic judges play a crucial role, but only if they're viewed as independent. Otherwise, their decisions get dismissed as coercion or collusion.

Hungary provides a cautionary tale. Early in Viktor Orbán's rule, the Constitutional Court struck down some reforms, creating perceptions of continued rule of law. But once the court appeared fully captured, the European Union withdrew funding and declared Hungary no longer a true constitutional democracy.

The lesson for Trump is clear: to gain support for voting restrictions, immigration enforcement, and deregulation, he needs the Court to rule against him occasionally—and then comply gracefully.

Trump's Friday press conference wasn't exactly graceful, but he made a crucial commitment: he'll comply with a decision he considers "deeply misguided." That's not typical tyrant behavior, and it may rehabilitate his image just enough to advance other agenda items.

The Real Test Lies Ahead

This ruling doesn't herald fundamental change in the Court's relationship with Trumpism. The justices have only diverted one piece of Trump's program that spooked Wall Street and split Republicans. Nothing suggests new willingness to push back in other areas.

Fundamental democratic norms remain under assault. The real test will come when Trump moves to dismantle independent agencies, quell political dissent, or interfere with midterm elections. How the Court responds to these challenges will determine whether American democracy continues its authoritarian slide.

The tariffs case represents a warm-up act in the fight to preserve democratic institutions, not the main event. The Roberts Court remains both enabler and check on Trumpism—a delicate balance that serves both sides' interests for now.