A revealing segment on MSNOW’s Alex Witt show unpacked the Supreme Court’s emphatic 6–3 decision striking down Donald Trump’s tariff regime. While many court watchers expected the legal challenge to succeed, the real suspense centered on whether this particular Court—dominated by six conservatives, three of them Trump appointees—would side with the law or bend toward the former president. Critics have long accused the current majority of showing deference to Trump in key disputes, an accusation the justices themselves have publicly bristled at.
The 6–3 ruling against Trump’s tariffs was decisive. On its face, it appeared to be a clear rebuke of executive overreach and a sign that even this Court has limits. Naturally, the conversation turned to whether the decision signals a broader willingness by the so-called Roberts Court to check Trump’s more aggressive assertions of presidential power going forward.
Guest Leah Litman offered a far more skeptical take. She cautioned viewers against interpreting the ruling as any meaningful shift in posture. In her view, nothing fundamental has changed. Litman argued that the Court’s conservative majority is willing to rule against Trump only when his brand of authoritarianism collides with interests that matter directly to them—particularly economic interests. Put bluntly, she suggested the justices are far less inclined to tolerate executive overreach when it threatens financial stability or, more cynically, their own bottom lines.
Litman went further, predicting a similar outcome in the forthcoming case over Trump’s asserted authority to fire Federal Reserve Bank governors at will. If the Court sees an unchecked power grab as destabilizing to markets or the broader financial system, she implied, that is when it is most likely to step in. The legal merits may matter, but under her theory, the practical economic consequences carry equal—if not greater—weight.
Whether Litman’s provocative framework proves accurate remains to be seen. As the Court prepares to weigh additional cases testing the limits of presidential authority, observers will be watching closely for patterns. If future rulings align with her prediction, the tariff decision may come to be seen not as a principled stand against authoritarianism, but as a narrow defense of institutional and economic self-interest.
