In the latest legal showdown, the courts have made a decision that’s left many scratching their heads, though not entirely surprised. Conservatives expected that the odds weren’t stacked in favor of the president’s appeal regarding tariffs. This story is like a rerun of a show where everyone knows the plot twist before it happens, thanks to a few conservative justices sticking to their classic playbook: the textual approach. It seems they just couldn’t find the clear authority under the AIPA, leaving the outcome all but sealed. In this courtroom drama, it was clear the president was facing an uphill battle.

Interestingly, the solicitor general of the United States put on quite the performance during oral arguments. They did a commendable job, even if it felt like a Shakespearean tragedy where the hero never stood a chance. Despite this valiant effort, the solicitor general’s arguments didn’t win the day. In the end, this is one of those times when the inevitable happened, and the administration, likely well-prepared, didn’t have much to be surprised about.

Now, before anyone thinks their pocketbooks are about to get heavier with refunds, think again. The court’s ruling doesn’t mean a flurry of refund checks will suddenly be sent out – it’s not like someone just hit the lottery. Also, those tariffs that the president has skillfully used as part of his foreign policy toolkit? Well, they’re not disappearing either. Tariffs have become a defining feature of the president’s strategy, even as recent as securing a trade deal with Indonesia. This part of his legacy appears, for the time being, untouchable.

Justice Thomas added some flavor to the mix, aiming directly at Justice Gorsuch’s reasoning like a sharp-tongued uncle at Thanksgiving. Citing history, Thomas argued that since the 1790s, Congress has often given the president power over foreign commerce, including imposing duties on imports. It’s almost as if he was saying, “Here, let me take you through a history lesson.” Even if one might agree with the majority’s intentions to reinforce congressional power, Thomas made a compelling historical case that can’t simply be swept under the legal rug.

The decision leaves many pondering the roles of the three Democrat justices who, curiously, sided with the conservatives’ textual perspective this time. Perhaps they were all reading from the same script, unexpectedly united on this textualist front. It’s not where they’d usually be spotted on the judicial map. Ultimately, whether through deft trade negotiations or staving off too much executive power erosion, the president appears to emerge largely unscathed, ready to continue navigating these policy waters.