Today, the Supreme Court handed down its long-awaited opinion holding 6-3 that Donald Trump cannot unilaterally impose tariffs on dozens of trading partners. The decision is correct from a textualist, originalist, and conservative point of view. But for all Trump’s ire, it probably won’t harm him politically. Indeed, it may even strengthen him.

The court’s opinion is fractured, with lengthy dissents and concurrences. The holding, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, is not even joined by a majority in its entirety, meaning that only the main arguments are binding. But the ultimate result is the same: six justices agree that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorise the President to impose tariffs by executive order. That power was delegated to Congress when the Constitution was first written in 1787, and it remains with Congress today.

The ruling means that Trump’s tariffs are dead, repealed, and may even have to be refunded (the court has not ruled on that last part yet). This would shrink government revenues and widen the deficit, but it could also ease prices, offering tangible relief on affordability for many voters.

Ironically, that last part may work to Trump’s benefit in the midterms. He did not break his promise; the courts did. Now, because the Supreme Court knocked it down, voters who believe in the America First trade agenda will have to elect a Congress that will enact these policies into law.

The three liberal justices — Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson — signed on the holding to limit the power of this president. Somewhat cynically, however, they declined to sign on to that part of Roberts’s opinion dealing with the Major Questions doctrine, which would limit the power of every president. Meanwhile, the three dissenters — Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh — would have upheld the tariffs entirely, arguing that “tariffs are a traditional and common tool to regulate importation,” and the government has interpreted the IEEPA correctly.

Reaction to this holding on the Left may be confused, because many political pundits of that persuasion have convinced themselves that the Roberts Court is simply a rubber stamp for the Trump administration. Here, in rebuking the President on his signature issue, the justices prove that assertion false. The court is not just politics by other means, at least not for all of the members of the judiciary. Most judges are judges first and partisans second, if at all.

The court’s decision finishes these tariffs, but it does not end the debate over trade policy, which has been going on since the time of Alexander Hamilton. But in stating clearly that the judgment about trade rests with the legislature, the court reminds members of Congress that if they want a policy enacted, it is up to them to enact it. The idea the legislature should write laws is one so obvious that, for most of American history, it would have been unnecessary to say it aloud. In these times, Congress might need to hear it again.