Fast‑Track Schedule and November Arguments The Court approved an accelerated briefing schedule in September and heard oral arguments on Nov 5, marking an unusually swift process for a major trade dispute [2]. Both articles note that the fast‑track was intended to address the administration’s claim that “time was of the essence” and that no immediate opinion was expected [1][2]. During the hearing, justices expressed skepticism about the tariffs’ legality, reflecting typical deliberation periods [1].

Potential February 20 Decision During Recess After the November hearing, the nine justices entered a recess, and the Court could reconvene to issue an opinion on Feb 20, the usual deadline for the Court’s annual opinion release [2]. Interrupting the recess to release a ruling would be highly unusual, and no formal deadline has been set for this case [2]. The AP report adds that the three‑month wait aligns with the Court’s average opinion turnaround, suggesting the timeline may be procedural rather than deliberate delay [1].

Trump’s Tariff Adjustments Increase Political Stakes President Trump announced on Monday that tariffs on South Korean imports would rise from 15 % to 25 % and earlier threatened European tariffs over the Greenland plan before backing down, intensifying pressure on the Court [2]. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent warned that postponing a final ruling puts the economy “on the brink” and projected up to $1 trillion in revenue by June if the tariffs remain [2][1]. The administration continues to collect tariff revenue while the legal outcome hangs in balance [1].

Justices Split Over Executive Tariff Authority Oral arguments revealed a clear ideological split: Justices Barrett, Roberts, and Gorsuch appeared conflicted, while Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh leaned toward supporting Trump’s authority under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, and Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson opposed it [2]. The division underscores differing interpretations of the non‑delegation doctrine and presidential emergency powers [2]. AP notes that such splits can produce a wavering fifth vote and potential dissent, further delaying the opinion [1].

Experts Predict June Ruling Based on Historical Pace Georgetown trade expert Marc Busch expects the Court to issue a decision by June, citing the institution’s typical workload and political pressure [1]. Historical examples range from one‑day rulings in Bush v. Gore to multi‑month delays in major rights cases, illustrating the Court’s flexibility [1]. Legal scholars warn that an evenly divided bench or a strong dissent could extend the timeline beyond the projected June window [1].