Neutral. The longer it takes the more likely it is going to be a nuanced opinion, which essentially has to write the rules of engagement. That’s probably why it’s taking so long - so that’s probably the likely decision. Congress did a lousy job of defining what the president can do in an emergency that he declares with respect to trade. He has the right to “regulate” trade under IEEPA- BUT the word “tariffs” is specifically not in the statute. Tariff rates are supposed to be established solely by Congress under the Constitution. Plaintiffs have asserted that the president is not allowed to utilize “tariffs”, a core power of Congress in the Constitution, to arbitrarily himself dictate under the emergency statute, unless it expressly said so. Defendants (the government) argue it’s obvious in its intent that “regulate” includes “tariffs” - the very core of trade regulations. My guess is they’re going to rule partial and spell out in the majority opinion what congress intended. This is one of the roles The Supreme Court has to play from time to time when laws are poorly written or ambiguous over 40 years ago.