When a significant court decision is made and no one in the appropriate positions seems to be discussing it, a certain silence descends upon American politics. On May 8, a split three-judge panel of the Court of International Trade in New York decided, 2-1, that President Trump’s most recent round of 10% global tariffs were “invalid” and “unauthorized by law.” In less than three months, it was the second significant legal setback to his tariff agenda. However, it would be difficult to find someone discussing it at the diner counter in any small Pennsylvanian or Ohioan town that weekend.
The decision itself was harsh. Even after his administration hurried to invoke Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act—a law that had, astonishingly, never been used before—the court determined that Trump had exceeded the authority Congress had given him. He had made the move in February, just hours after his more comprehensive tariff plan based on emergency powers was overturned by the Supreme Court by a 6-3 majority. With an expiration date of late July, the new tariffs were intended to be temporary. The court ruled that they were also unlawful.
The legal reasoning isn’t particularly noteworthy. It’s the political response. Or rather, the absence of one.
MAGA-aligned commentators hardly noticed the decision in the days following it. Trump’s well-known remarks about “anti-American” judges and “ridiculous” rulings were all over Truth Social. The language was somewhat rehashed from February and was by now practically stale. Most of his supporters, who had praised the tariffs as a sign of economic patriotism, continued as if nothing had changed. For some time now, there has been a growing perception that those who support these tariffs don’t care about their legal standing. Legality was never the point. The message was the point.
Sitting with that is worthwhile. The costs have been borne by small businesses and American consumers. The plaintiffs that prevailed included the state of Washington, the toy company Basic Fun!, and the spice importer Burlap & Barrel. UPS recently declared that it would reimburse consumers who had paid tariff fees. Real money, real receipts, real annoyance. The political alliance that initially called for these tariffs hasn’t changed its mind.
Around the third or fourth cycle of tariff news, voters may have lost interest. It’s also possible that the immediate, visceral satisfaction of witnessing the president pick a fight with China, Mexico, or, for a moment, Canada, outweighs the abstract nature of the courts. For a significant portion of the base, tariffs have always been more about sentiment than logic. The product is the grievance.
Democrats are sufficiently aware of this. Ted Lieu predicted that the new tariffs would be overturned in court when they expired and referred to them as an act of presidential temper. The victory was hailed as a second courtroom triumph by the attorney general of New Jersey. The emergency powers law that Trump initially used, IEEPA, was never intended for this, according to months of explanation from Brookings experts. Foreign allies, such as Friedrich Merz of Germany, are constantly cautioning about the unpredictability affecting international markets.
And yet, here we are. The day following the Supreme Court decision, Trump raised the worldwide tariff rate to 15%. the highest rate permitted by Section 122. Like a man swatting away a fly, he did it almost instinctively.
It’s difficult to ignore the deeper pattern as you watch this develop. The president has now been informed by two courts that his tariffs are illegal. If his base is aware at all, it appears unconcerned. Perhaps the most American political story of 2026 is not the decision per se, but rather how little of an impact it ultimately had.