据法律观察人士称，周五，唐纳德·特朗普总统在最高法院就其全面关税政策展开较量中幸存下来的几率似乎悄然上升——并非因为大法官们发布了裁决，而是因为他们根本没有做出裁决。
最高法院再次拒绝就备受关注挑战特朗普动用紧急权力征收关税的案件做出裁决，令投资者、进口商和企业在翘首以盼却迟迟未获裁决后陷入了悬而未决的境地。
这是不到一周内最高法院第二次拒绝发布裁决，加剧了外界对大法官们意见分歧的猜测——而漫长的等待最终可能对白宫有利。
克拉克·希尔律师事务所的贸易律师凯尔西·克里斯滕森告诉财经新闻网站MarketWatch，“我们认为，关税裁决的漫长等待可能对特朗普政府比对进口商更有利，但这并不能保证最终结果。”
克里斯滕森表示，按照最高法院的标准来看，此案的进展仍然很快，她指出，口头辩论仅仅在两个月前才举行。
她评论道：“从11月到1月，最高法院审理并发布重要意见的速度堪称闪电般迅速。”她补充说，大法官们可能正在“对多数意见进行微调”，同时还会撰写“异议意见或协同意见”。
在法律术语中，协同意见是指法官单独撰写的意见，该法官同意多数意见，但希望阐述不同的理由或强调其他论点。
雪城大学法学院院长、福特汽车公司前贸易律师特伦斯·刘告诉MarketWatch，如果大法官们做出对特朗普不利的裁决，他们可能正在纠结该采取何种程度的措施。
刘表示：“等待时间的延长表明大法官们正在讨论补救措施的范围。”
他指出，一种可能性是采取“折中方案”，即法院宣布关税无效，但将退税限制在未来征收的税款上，从而使财政部无需偿还已征收的关税。 刘警告说，“关税持续的时间越长，追溯退税对美国财政部造成的损失就越惨重。”
市场观察人士一直在实时解读市场动向。
在卡尔希预测市场上，特朗普在关税案中胜诉的概率周五升至34%，高于本周早些时候的22%。
Polymarket也出现了类似的走势，特朗普的胜算在几天前跌至接近21%后，攀升至33%。
此案牵涉巨大的经济利益，数千亿美元的关税收入和潜在的退税款项都悬而未决。
下级法院此前裁定，特朗普援引1977年《国际紧急经济权力法》为针对特定国家的关税辩护，属于越权行为。
批评人士认为，该法案并未明确授权征收关税，而且此前从未被用于此目的。
特朗普一再为其行为的合法性辩护，并警告称，如果取消关税，将对美国经济造成严重损害。
本周早些时候，总统在社交媒体上发帖，对最高法院如果裁定关税无效，可能导致巨额退款的前景表示担忧。
特朗普写道，“那将是一团糟，我们国家几乎无力承担。”
特朗普政府官员已表示，即使最高法院推翻现行关税制度，他们也准备维持关税不变，并计划根据其他贸易法重新征收关税。
这些备选方案包括以国家安全为由援引《贸易扩展法》第232条，以及《贸易法》第301条、第122条和第338条——这些条款授权白宫通过不同的法律渠道征收新的或临时关税。
《华盛顿邮报》已就此事向白宫寻求置评。
President Donald Trump’s chances of survivinga Supreme Court showdown over his sweeping tariff regime quietly appeared to tick higher Friday — not because the justices issued a ruling, but because they didn’t rule at all, according to legal observers.
The high court again declined to issue a decision in the closely watched case challenging Trump’s use of emergency powers to impose tariffs, leaving investors, importers and businesses in limbo after bracing for an opinion that is yet to come despite their expectations.
The delay marked the second time in less than a week that the court passed on releasing a ruling, fueling speculation that the justices are divided — and that the prolonged wait may ultimately favor the White House.
“We agree that a long wait for the tariff decision is probably a better sign for the Trump administration than it is for importers, but it is no guarantee of the outcome,” Kelsey Christensen, a trade attorney at law firm Clark Hill, told the financial news site MarketWatch.
Christensen said the case is still moving quickly by Supreme Court standards, noting that oral arguments were held just two months ago.
“November to January is lightning speed for the court to hear and publish a major opinion,” she observed, adding that the justices may be “fine-tuning a majority opinion” along with “dissents or concurrences.”
In legalese, a concurrence is a separate opinion written by a judge who agrees with the majority but wishes to state different reasoning or emphasize other arguments.
Terence Lau, dean of Syracuse University’s law school and a former trade attorney for Ford Motor Co., told MarketWatch that the justices may be struggling with how far to go if they rule against Trump.
“The longer wait suggests the justices are debating the scope of the remedy,” Lau said.
One possibility, he said, is a “middle ground” outcome in which the court invalidates the tariffs but limits refunds to future collections, sparing the Treasury from having to repay past duties already collected.
“The longer the tariffs remain in place, the more catastrophic a retroactive refund becomes for the US Treasury,” Lau warned.
Market watchers have been reading the tea leaves in real time.
On the prediction market Kalshi, the odds of a Trump victory in the tariff case rose to 34% on Friday, up from as low as 22% earlier in the week.
Polymarket showed similar movement, with Trump’s chances climbing to 33% after dipping near 21% just a few days prior.
The case carries massive economic stakes, with billions of dollars in tariff revenue — and potential refunds — hanging in the balance.
Lower courts previously ruled that Trump exceeded his authority by using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 to justify country-specific tariffs.
Critics argue the statute does not explicitly authorize tariffs and has never before been used for that purpose.
Trump has repeatedly defended the legality of his actions and warned that striking down the tariffs would inflict serious damage on the US economy.
In a social-media post earlier this week, the president raised alarms about the prospect of massive refunds if the highest court in the land invalidates the levies.
“It would be a complete mess, and almost impossible for our country to pay,” Trump wrote.
Trump administration officials have signaled they are prepared to keep tariffs in place even if the Supreme Courtstrikes down the current regime, with plans to reissue levies under alternative trade laws.
Those fallback options includeinvoking Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act on national security grounds, as well as Sections 301, 122 and 338 of the Trade Act — authorities that would allow the White House to impose new or temporary tariffs through different legal channels.
The Post has sought comment from the White House.