Supreme Court Tariffs Decision: Evercore ISI's 50-50 Assessment and Market Implications

This analysis is based on the CNBC interview [Event source] with Krishna Guha, Evercore ISI Vice Chairman, published on November 5, 2025, during ongoing Supreme Court oral arguments on President Trump’s tariff authority.

The Supreme Court is currently hearing arguments on President Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping tariffs on imports from over 100 countries, including fentanyl-related and “liberation day” tariffs [1][2]. Guha’s 50-50 assessment reflects the divided judicial sentiment observed during oral arguments, creating significant uncertainty for markets and trade policy.

The case represents a fundamental challenge to presidential emergency powers, with unusual coalitions forming across ideological lines. Conservative justices, including Roberts, Gorsuch, and Barrett, joined liberal colleagues in questioning the administration’s broad interpretation of tariff authority [1]. This judicial skepticism suggests the Court may impose limits on executive power, potentially reshaping the balance between presidential and congressional authority in international trade.

The oral arguments revealed significant skepticism from key conservative justices, which is particularly notable given the Court’s current composition. Chief Justice Roberts indicated the “major questions doctrine” appears to apply, potentially favoring challengers who argue Congress never granted such sweeping tariff authority [1]. Justice Barrett questioned whether tariffs on allies like Spain and France constitute necessary emergency measures, while Justice Gorsuch warned of a “one-way ratchet” toward executive power accumulation [1].

This case extends beyond tariff policy to test the limits of presidential authority under IEEPA and the nondelegation doctrine [1][2]. The decision will establish precedent for future executive actions and could significantly impact the scope of presidential emergency powers across multiple policy areas.

The tariffs affect over 100 countries and impact global supply chains, with trillions in trade at stake [1]. The uncertainty surrounding the Court’s decision creates significant market volatility risk, particularly for sectors heavily dependent on international trade and manufacturing.

• Legal Uncertainty:
  The 50-50 probability assessment reflects genuine judicial division, making the outcome highly unpredictable [Event source]
• Economic Disruption:
  A ruling either way could trigger significant market adjustments and supply chain reconfigurations
• Presidential Power Limitations:
  A decision against the administration could constrain future executive emergency actions across policy areas
• International Relations:
  The outcome will affect diplomatic relationships with over 100 trading partners

• Strategic Planning:
  Companies can use this period to develop contingency plans for different tariff scenarios
• Policy Development:
  Congressional action may be stimulated regardless of Court outcome, potentially creating more predictable trade frameworks
• Market Positioning:
  Investors can identify sectors likely to benefit from either tariff continuation or limitation

The Supreme Court case centers on whether President Trump exceeded his authority under IEEPA by imposing tariffs on over 100 countries [1][2]. Key judicial questioning suggests the Court may apply the major questions doctrine, requiring clear congressional authorization for such sweeping economic measures. The unusual coalition of conservative, libertarian, and business groups opposing the administration’s position further complicates the political dynamics [1].

The decision timeline remains uncertain, but the ruling is expected in 2025 with immediate economic implications. Market participants should monitor both the judicial proceedings and potential congressional responses, as legislative action may follow regardless of the Court’s outcome. The case represents a critical moment in defining the balance of power between executive and legislative branches in international trade policy.