By Frank F Islam & Ed Crego, April 2nd, 2026 (Image credits: Tom de Boor, JNCGPT52)

The Supreme Court’s ruling (in Learning Resources, Inc v. Trump) that President Trump’s use of emergency powers to impose tariffs is illegal evoked a range of responses from optimistic to pessimistic to pragmatic.

Writing in The New York Times, David French opined that the decision “…may prove to be the most important Supreme Court decision this century.” French believes this may be the case because “the court blocked a monumental presidential power grab — one so big and so bold that it threatened the foundation of our constitutional system.” And because “it may help restore faith in how courts make decisions.”

Roland Dixson and David Posen were much less celebratory in their piece in The Atlantic’s Ideas section. They state “Both the White House and the Court will gain from the decision.”

The court gains because “By showcasing its independence in this way, the Court earns currency that it can spend in subsequent decisions that enable Trump rather than restrain him.” Trump wins because even though this is a “smackdown,” according to Dixon and Posen, “…the tariffs ruling is unlikely to do significant damage to the Trump administration or the Republican party legally, politically, or otherwise.”

William Galston of the Brookings Institution focused on what this means for our American democracy. Galston believes it is positive for our democracy for four reasons: (1) The conservative majority on the court appeared to be “putting partisan politics ahead of judicial responsibility.” This decision demonstrates “The Court is still able to function as the independent third branch of government the founders envisioned.” (2) It reasserts the “dominant role of government in matters of taxation.” (3) Trump accepted the decision as binding and moved immediately to replace the eliminated tariffs with other tariffs.” (4) Even though Trump imposed new tariffs, they “must end in 150 days unless Congress votes extend them.”

We share the full range of those reactions. We are cautiously optimistic because members of the conservative majority on the Court have demonstrated they can still act independently, rather that as partners and proponents of Trump’s unitary executive approach to governing. We are somewhat pessimistic because there is no guarantee that those members will stand and deliver in the future, rather than joining with and kowtowing to the commander-in-chief. We are realistically pragmatic, remembering that Abraham Lincoln advised us, “The people of these United States are the rightful masters of both congresses and courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert that Constitution.”

Lincoln’s advice is more relevant today than ever. We are living in tumultuous and dangerous times for our democracy. As we wrote in our blog on the Supreme Court last year:

In 2025, with the Congress controlled by the Trump administration and the Supreme Court collaborating with the Trump administration, it may not be an overstatement to say there may no longer be three equal branches of government. Today, there may only be one branch. It might be labeled the unified branch of the Supreme Rulers.

In 2026, with its tariff decision the Supreme Court may be indicating it is on a redemption route, and returning to the role it was meant to play as an equal branch of government in our democracy.

Time will tell whether this is the case on a case-by-case basis. As Dixon and Pozen warn us near the end of their commentary,

Whether and to what extent the United States continues its slide toward authoritarianism will depend much more, for example, on how the Court responds to Trump’s efforts to dismantle independent agencies, quell political dissent, and interfere with the midterm elections.

The tariffs case must therefore be understood as a warm-up act in the fight to preserve the core of American democracy, rather than the main event.

Our fondest hope is that the Court stops this slide. One of our reasons to be hopeful is Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch’s masterful concurring opinion in the Trump tariffs case.

Jeffrey Rosen, CEO emeritus of the National Constitution Center, in his Atlantic opinion piece, writes:

…Gorsuch’s concurring opinion may become the Roberts Court’s most influential statement on how to prevent the steady accretion of executive power by encouraging Congress to do its job.

Rosen ends his piece quoting Gorsuch’s opinion:

“The deliberative nature of the legislative process was the whole point of its design,” Gorsuch wrote. “Through that process, the Nation can tap the combined wisdom of the people’s elected representatives, not just that of one faction or man.” He continued, “If history is any guide, the tables will turn and the day will come when those disappointed by today’s result will appreciate the legislative process for the bulwark of liberty it is.”

That is an insightful and powerful statement. We sincerely wish that Gorsuch’s fellow justices on the Supreme Court realize it is essential to remember that the president is not above the law, nor immune from wrongdoing, in spite of their past rulings.

That would make a significant contribution to maintaining our democracy on an even keel and stopping it from slipping further toward becoming an autocracy. By itself, however, it will be insufficient to keep our democracy intact.

As David French cautions at the end of his otherwise optimistic piece,

The judiciary isn’t perfect, but it is performing its core constitutional function. It is preserving the foundation of America’s constitutional structure.

But not even the Supreme Court can save Americans from themselves. If we keep electing men like Trump, they will keep undermining that foundation, until it finally collapses. One day that may well happen.

But on Friday, the Supreme Court said not this day. On this day the presidency is stuffed back into its box. On this day the separation of powers prevails. And on this day the Constitution holds.

It is now our job to make sure that the Supreme Court did not stand in vain.

In 2026, it is critical for concerned citizens to do “our jobs.” Along with our rights come responsibilities.

The democracy that is the United States of America was not born because of the Supreme Court. It was born by and for we, the people. It will be up to us to determine whether our democracy survives and thrives or becomes a memory of what used to be.