Interesting. I didn’t realize that. 

Allowing ends-justify-means legal justifications doesn’t seem great. 

Undisciplined

In theory, yes, legal interpretation should be independent of outcomes.

But the immunity ruling already broke that standard. SCOTUS didn’t just interpret law; it constructed a political reality: an executive shielded from accountability. Once the Court created that imbalance, it stopped being a clean separation-of-powers question.

So while we should be able to talk about tariffs and trade law in the abstract, the Court itself blurred the line.

Politics_And_Law

Trade Deficit Blowout Undercuts Tariff Case at SCOTUS

Yermin

In theory, yes, legal interpretation should be independent of outcomes.
But the immunity ruling already broke that standard. SCOTUS didn’t just interpret law; it constructed a political reality: an executive shielded from accountability. Once the Court created that imbalance, it stopped being a clean separation-of-powers question.

So while we should be able to talk about tariffs and trade law in the abstract, the Court itself blurred the line.