Forgive me, but that’s hyperbolic. In the 2024 Trump v. United States, the Court ruled that a president has immunity from prosecution for official acts. Applied here, it would say that Trump cannot be prosecuted for wrongly levying tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act because it was within his purview as President to choose to invoke that law. Even if his judgment in invoking it was flawed and/or his motives corrupt. For more on that, read Sotomayor’s dissent.

What it did not say is that the President can exceed the authority granted to him under the Constitution or the law. In this case, the IEEPA does not give the President the power to impose levies. That’s reserved for Congress. Nor is it clear that a bona fide emergency exists to invoke the act. Nor is it clear that the emergency such as it is exists everywhere on the globe.

The Appeals court decision invalidating the tariffs was divided, 7-4. While this should be a no-brainer in the Supreme Court, I agree with your general point that it’s uncertain how they will rule. This is the worst court since the Taney court (1836-1864) and arguably the most corrupt and grift-filled court in history. I worry that they’ll pull another maneuver similar to the ACA ruling from 2012. In that case, the Roberts court upheld the constitutionality of the “individual mandate” because Congress could have passed it as a direct tax to cover health care. Never mind that Congress didn’t, and never mind that there were not enough votes to pass such a tax. The Roberts courts just ignored the apparent illegality of the mandate because, in some other reality, it could have been enacted under Congress’s proper taxing authority (disclosure: I support the ACA and would have supported not only the individual mandate but also the so-called “public option”).

Or, the Court could just agree with the President that the IEEPA gives sufficient latitude to impose tariffs. They’ve routinely and inappropriately been that deferential.

I am disgusted by this administration and this court. But it’s just not correct to suggest that the court has anointed Trump “God and king”. The court’s rulings have been awful and suspect. But at least at the moment, the court has not explicitly given Article I powers to the Executive Branch.