The U.S. Supreme Court left unresolved Tuesday a high-stakes challenge to President Donald Trump’s use of an emergency law to impose sweeping tariffs, prolonging uncertainty over a case closely watched by the White House and global markets.
The high court released three lower-profile opinions: Berk v. Choy, Ellingburg v. United States and Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc. v. Burton.
All three rulings were unanimous, with separate concurring opinions filed in two of the cases.
In Berk v. Choy, the justices looked at whether a Delaware law requiring medical malpractice plaintiffs to file an ‘affidavit of merit’ applies in federal court. The Court unanimously said it does not, ruling that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure control instead and override the state requirement.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson filed a concurring opinion.
In Coney Island Auto Parts v. Burton, the case centered on whether a company could challenge a judgment as void years later, or whether it waited too long to do so. The Court unanimously ruled that even claims arguing a judgment is void must be filed within a ‘reasonable time’ under federal rules.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring in the judgment.
And in Ellingburg v. United States, the justices considered whether court-ordered monetary restitution under a federal law counts as criminal punishment for purposes of the Constitution’s Ex Post Facto Clause. The justices unanimously agreed that it does, meaning restitution is subject to the Constitution’s limits on retroactive criminal punishment.
Anticipation for the Supreme Court tariff ruling is building after Trump threatened on his Truth Social platform to impose a 10% tariff on eight European countries unless a deal is reached for what he called the ‘complete and total purchase of Greenland.’
Trump has defended the tariffs as a necessary use of emergency authority, while challengers argue the move exceeds presidential power and bypasses Congress.
The Court has not yet announced when it will next release opinions.