I am not a lawyer, so use a grain of salt. However, it seems that this SCOTUS ruling was exceptionally straightforward. Dean Obeidallah (who is a lawyer) observed that Roberts' opinion (representing the 6 majority justices) was less than 20 pages, which is on the short side. And Roberts was clear the Court are about economic experts or foreign trade experts. Their job is to rule on the constitutionality and legality of actions.
To summarize, the majority opinion is simple, saying that the Constitution is perfectly clear that only Congress has the authority to impose taxes, and (importantly) tariffs are taxes. Further, there is nothing on the law that Trump cites that gives him the authority to impose tariffs except in extraordinary emergencies. And the court found there was nothing extraordinary.
The point is that this is very clear legal precedent now. Trump immediately put out an EO to impose a 10% tariff on the entire world, arguing the 1974 law enables that. That law says that the tariffs can only remain 150 days unless Congress acts, and they won't in an election year. So most of the commentary I have seen says that the tariffs will last for 5 months and then go away.
I think that may be wrong. People expect legal challenges almost immediately, but many of the commentaries I have seen says that will take years to litigate. I'm not so sure, and remember I am not a lawyer. However, with such a clear decision from the SCOTUS, it seems to me very possible that a court will grant an injunction against Trump's EO on the basis that Trump is very likely to lose again. In other words, the clarity of the Roberts opinion, and the fact that it was a large majority (6-3) looks like an invitation for a lower court to grant an injunction, a circuit court to validate that, and SCOTUS to refuse to intervene.
The key question is whether the 1974 law is any more explicit in giving this power to the President. I think it is not. Under the 1974, the President has limited authority, but only under one of these conditions: unfair foreign trade practices (Section 301), injury to domestic industries (Section 201), or balance-of-payments deficits (Section 122). And they all require findings of fact by appropriate agencies, which has not been done. That, alone should support an injunction.
There is no evidence of unusual trade deficits, so forget that one. And the other two imply problems with specific countries, industries, or products. But Trump did a BLANKET 10%, meaning he has a problem with every country, every industry and every product. That is complete nonsense. So I don't see how a court could NOT grant the injunction.
I suppose there is a question of standing. Normally it should be Congress that sues because ultimately it is their power that Trump is usurping. But we all know Congress won't do this. However, I would think that just about any importer could have standing, and that is exactly what happened in the case decided Friday.
= new reply since forum marked as read