Supreme Court threw out the tariffs' emergency statute; the same tariffs go back this week under another law.

…(cont) Then the pen again. On September 18 a federal judge struck down the Education Department's anti-DEI policy for teacher grants. Ten days later the same department, under Secretary Linda McMahon, scrapped the Biden-era Title IX rule requiring colleges and high schools to provide equal athletic opportunity for women and girls. One office, two directions, ten days. What a judge could reach got reached.

Which brings us to this week, and the tariffs. The Supreme Court has already ruled that the president cannot invoke an emergency statute to impose his global trade war. So the tariffs head back to court — the third round this year — with the president pointing to a different law, one everyone agrees does let a president impose tariffs. The challengers' phrase for the exercise is "rinse and repeat." The hope on the other side, stated plainly in the wire, is that the third time will be the charm.

Here is the con, and it is not complicated. A court ruling is being handled as a routing problem. Lose on the emergency statute, refile under a trade statute. Lose on the elections clause, appeal, then appeal again, then wait for the high court. Nothing gets dropped; the name on the authority changes and the same policy walks back through the door.

And the calendar does the work the argument couldn't. Every lap buys months, and months are the whole prize. An order restricting mail ballots only has to be alive through the midterms to have done its job. A tariff only has to be in force while the briefs are being written. Two courts have now told this administration, on two separate policies, that it cannot do the thing. Neither answer was that it would stop. Both answers were the same move under a different name. Somebody should be counting the laps, because the count is the story.