Weekly civic intelligence report · v2.2
A federal appeals court ruled that President Trump's sweeping global tariff campaign is largely unconstitutional, finding he lacked legal authority to impose them. However, the court delayed immediate removal, leaving tariffs in place pending further legal proceedings and likely Supreme Court review.
A-score: Federal appeals court ruling that presidential tariffs are unconstitutional represents significant separation of powers assertion (4.8) - judiciary checking executive overreach on trade authority. Strong rule of law component (4.5) as court declares executive actions illegal despite political pressure. Judicial mechanism modifier 1.3 applies as this is direct constitutional adjudication. Federal scope with broad economic impact justifies 1.2 scope modifier. Severity: durability 1.1 (ruling stands pending SCOTUS), precedent 1.2 (major separation of powers case on trade authority). However, court's decision to leave tariffs in place pending appeal significantly reduces immediate constitutional impact. B-score: High media friendliness (4.5) due to clear Trump/court conflict narrative and economic stakes. Moderate outrage potential (3.5) and novelty (3.0). Layer 2 shows moderate mismatch (2.5) between 'unconstitutional' ruling and practical non-effect. Low intentionality (4/15) - some coordinated framing but primarily legitimate news coverage of major judicial ruling. D-score: +10.16 clearly exceeds +10 threshold with A>=25, qualifying for List A.
Monitor Supreme Court appeal proceedings and any administration response to judicial ruling. Track whether tariffs remain in effect through appeal process and assess long-term precedent on executive trade authority versus congressional delegation. This represents genuine separation of powers conflict with constitutional significance despite delayed practical effect.