> The problem in this case is that Congress made such a mess of the law that the lower court judges didn't think the outcome obvious enough to grant the injunction.

The lower courts issued several such injunctions.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/29/us/politics/trump-tariffs...

"On Wednesday, the U.S. Court of International Trade dealt an early blow to that strategy. The bipartisan panel of judges, one of whom had been appointed by Mr. Trump, ruled that the law did not grant the president “unbounded authority” to impose tariffs on nearly every country, as Mr. Trump had sought. As a result, the president’s tariffs were declared illegal, and the court ordered a halt to their collection within the next 10 days."

"Just before she spoke, a federal judge in a separate case ordered another, temporary halt to many of Mr. Trump’s tariffs, ruling in favor of an educational toy company in Illinois, whose lawyers told the court it was harmed by Mr. Trump’s actions."

▲

AnthonyMouse 4 hours ago | parent [-]

There were presumably lower court judges who didn't issue injunctions, or what are people objecting to?

▲

ceejayoz 4 hours ago | parent [-]

The appeals level stayed the injunctions temporarily, probably expecting a quick emergency docket ruling rather than a long delay.

▲

AnthonyMouse 4 hours ago | parent [-]

The appellate court decides whether to stay the injunction based on how likely they think you are to win more than which docket they think the Supreme Court is going to use. Cases going on the emergency docket are not common.

▲

ceejayoz 4 hours ago | parent [-]

> The appellate court decides whether to stay the injunction based on how likely they think you are to win…

If multiple appeals courts thought this case was a winner for the administration, we have an even bigger problem.

(Also, no. They might, for example, disagree on immediate irreparable harm, but not the overall merits.)

> Cases going on the emergency docket are not common.

Sure. But some of them look clearly destined for it. Including this one.

▲

AnthonyMouse 4 hours ago | parent [-]

> If multiple appeals courts thought this case was a winner for the administration, we have an even bigger problem.

Do we? The law here was a mess. Prediction markets didn't have the outcome at anything like a certainty and the relevant stocks are up on the decision, implying it wasn't already priced in -- and both of those are with the benefit of the transcripts once the case was already at the Supreme Court to feel out how the Justices were leaning, which the intermediary appellate court wouldn't have had at the time.

> Sure. But some of them look clearly destined for it.

It's not a thing anyone should be banking on in any case. And if that was actually their expectation then they could just as easily have not stayed the injunction and just let the Supreme Court do it if they were inclined to.

▲

ceejayoz 4 hours ago | parent [-]

> the relevant stocks are up on the decision

Predictable result, unpredictable timing.

> they could just as easily have not stayed the injunction and just let the Supreme Court do it if they were inclined to

Hindsight is, as always, 20/20.

▲

AnthonyMouse 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> Predictable result, unpredictable timing.

That wouldn't explain the prediction markets thinking the administration had a double digit chance of winning. The sure things go 99:1.

> Hindsight is, as always, 20/20.

It's not a matter of knowing which docket would be used. Why stay the injunction at all if you think the Supreme Court is going to immediately reverse you?

	▲	ceejayoz 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> That wouldn't explain the prediction markets thinking the administration had a double digit chance of winning. I am not a believer in the accuracy of prediction markets. > Why stay the injunction at all if you think the Supreme Court is going to immediately reverse you? They didn't think that. They thought SCOTUS would back them up faster. Back in November: https://fortune.com/2025/11/07/trump-tariffs-supreme-court-i... "That suggests a potentially lopsided 7-2 vote against Trump, who appointed Gorsuch, Barrett and Kavanaugh during his first term." We got 6-3. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/international-trade/trump-tari... "Though he normally aligns with Thomas and Alito, Gorsuch may be more likely to vote against Trump’s tariffs than Kavanaugh is, according to Prelogar. “It might actually be the chief, Barrett and Gorsuch who are in play,” she said." https://www.quarles.com/newsroom/publications/oral-arguments... "During the argument, several Justices expressed skepticism about the IEEPA expanding the President’s powers to encompass the ability to set tariffs." This was the widespread conclusion back then; that the justices were clearly skeptical and that the government was struggling to figure out an effective argument.