It took only a few moments after the Supreme Court’s long-awaited tariff decision for President Trump to strike back by imposing an across-the-board 10% tariff. Within 24 hours, he increased it to 15%. Under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, the tariffs remain in effect for the next 150 days. At that point, the tariff authority will expire unless Congress acts. Not to worry, the administration will have completed the mandatory work to continue the tariffs under yet another statute.

The same affected importers and others are likely to sue to prevent implementation. Still, given how long it took to secure a favorable decision on the original statute used to justify Trump’s torrent of tariffs, the administration will remain one step ahead of relief.

As for getting a refund for the illegal tariffs collected, Judge Kavanaugh, in his dissent, said that’s messy. Litigating the refunds could take years, according to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent.

Nice try, Supreme Court, but the courts are just too slow to keep up with those bright administration people. Trump’s beloved tariffs will remain, while importers will grow old waiting for their refunds.

According to the administration and its media supporters, the importer’s High Court victory is just a mirage. Nothing has really changed. Trump will keep your money and keep collecting in the future.

That’s one plotline for the future of the Trump tariff regime, but there might be another script. The stage for court challenges to the administration is the Court of International Trade (CIT). This court will hear the demands of Costco, FedEx, and many others for refunds.

As I alluded to in my last post, I was optimistic a year ago. Wrong on a lot, but I had some idea of how things might go. Right now, I have to admit, I’m clueless. The Ukraine War still rages. We’re bombing boats on the high seas and suspected terrorist sites in Nigeria. Not exactly peace on earth.

Inflation is still uncomfortably high. The national debt gets scarier by the minute. Employment is dicey, and manufacturing jobs are falling. Consumer sentiment is weak:

Yet the stock market keeps hitting new highs, and the economy is growing. What gives? Darned if I know, given today’s crosscurrents. I’ll share the clues I’m looking for that clarify the situation.

The first, expected early in 2026, is the Supreme Court’s ruling on the executive branch’s tariff powers. So many of Trump’s second-term actions depend on his ability to slap tariffs on anyone at will; any limits will change the face of his administration. Without knowing what restrictions the court will put on the executive, it’s hard to plan.

If the court narrowly decides that the law underlying the tariffs fails to cover them, but no further, the administration can invoke another law and reimpose the tariffs. Those who are negatively affected will sue again, and we’re back to square one, confused. Previously, I complained that the court was taking way too much time to decide a fundamental constitutional question: Does the first article of the Constitution mean what it clearly states, only Congress has the power to levy tariffs?

Could we be at the apex of the second Trump administration? The president is claiming victory on every front. Major trade deals with the E.U. and Japan, among others, were announced, with markets reaching new highs. Everyone is bending a knee to the master of the deal. Everyone knows because Donald Trump is on TV around the clock, telling us how great everything is going. To hear him tell it, there is almost too much winning.

Just under the surface, one can see some big rocks that the Administration is approaching. Both Japan and the E.U. imports are subject to a fifteen percent tariff. This rate seems stiff and protective of our manufacturing industries, such as the automotive sector, but a closer look reveals a different picture.

Reason’s economic and trade writer, Eric Boehm, points out that our domestic carmakers are dependent on inputs from Canada and Mexico, which are subject to a 25 percent levy. Using lower-cost parts and materials, Toyota could build autos completely in Japan, pay the tariff, and still undercut our auto manufacturers. The companies and the auto workers are already complaining about the disadvantage.

71% of Toyota cars sold in the U.S. are made here. This production supports hundreds of thousands of jobs in the U.S. With the price advantages afforded by the agreement to produce in Japan, these jobs are at risk.

If the 15% rate is suitable for Japan to produce at home, the E.U., subject to the same rate, will find itself in a similar position. European auto makers also employ a large number of people in the U.S. The Street put it this way, “The Big 3 now has a similar problem with EU competitors, as their 15% duties pale in comparison to the 25% duties U.S. manufacturers have to pay to get their cars from their Canadian and Mexican plants.”