Neil Gorsuch's appointment to the Supreme Court, driven by a desire to curb executive power within the Republican Party, has significantly shaped the Court's recent rulings. His views aligned with the Federalist Society's aim to weaken the executive branch, leading to the overruling of Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council and the introduction of the 'major questions doctrine'.
The major questions doctrine empowers the Supreme Court to veto executive actions deemed overly ambitious. Although criticized for its inconsistent application and lack of clear origins, this doctrine, if applied fairly, could potentially dismantle Trump's trade war and its detrimental economic consequences. The Yale Budget Lab's projection of a $4,900 income loss per US household highlights the vast economic significance of this issue.
Despite the Court's tendency to support Trump in certain aspects, there are reasons to believe it might overturn his tariffs. The alignment of Republican legal elites against the tariffs and the justices' potential adherence to ideologies held at the time of their appointments suggest a possibility. Examples of justices whose views evolved differently from their party's later stances, such as Justice Roberts' stance on Obamacare, are cited. Ultimately, the Court's decision will hinge on the justices' prioritization of traditional conservative principles versus party loyalty to a president.