Advisory Opinions Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument in Trump’s Tariff Case
56 snips
Nov 5, 2025 
Joining the discussion are David Lat, founder of the Original Jurisdiction newsletter, Roman Martinez, global chair of Supreme Court and appellate practice at Latham & Watkins, and Amy Howe, veteran SCOTUS reporter. They dive deep into Trump's tariff case, exploring the potential swing justices and their implications. Lat praises advocacy performances while Martinez analyzes major questions and nondelegation. Howe offers a firsthand courtroom view, and they reflect on the balance of power and executive overreach in this landmark legal battle.
AI Snips
Chapters
Books
Transcript
Episode notes
Court Likely To Be Closely Divided
- The Court appeared deeply split with three clear blocs and three swing votes in play.
- Roman Martinez predicted a close outcome hinging on Chief Justice, Barrett, and Gorsuch.
Textual Battle, Not Emergency Determination
- The justices focused on statutory text and major questions rather than whether an emergency existed.
- Oral argument largely avoided litigating whether the tariffs met the statute's emergency threshold.
Gorsuch Frames Tariffs As A Taxing Power Issue
- Gorsuch emphasized historical and constitutional limits, framing tariffs as akin to taxation.
- David French saw Gorsuch's closing as a potential game-changer for the challengers.
