On Thursday morning in the US, Best Buy cut its sales and profit outlook for the year. You can probably guess why.

“Today we are updating our full-year guidance to incorporate the impact of tariffs,” CFO Matt Bilunas said, adding that the big boxer’s “underlying working assumptions are that tariffs stay at current levels for the rest of the year.”

That’s as good an “assumption” as any other in an operating environment defined by out-and-out ambiguity — uncertainty twice the magnitude of that witnessed at the height of the pandemic, according to one measure.

Of course, what CFOs would say if they could — and some have — is that there’s no telling what tariff rates will be for the rest of the year, because trade policy under Donald Trump’s an ad hoc affair conducted according to one man’s petty whims. That’s a terrible way to conduct any sort of government policy, and according to the US Court of International Trade, it’s illegal when carried out under the auspices of The International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

Trump, you might recall, was sued over his second-term tariffs by a group of businesses and blue states alleging, among other things, that the trade emergency was “a figment of [Trump’s] own imagination.” “Trade deficits, which have persisted for decades without causing economic harm, are not an emergency,” plaintiffs jeered, in one of the complaints.

A three-judge panel in New York didn’t adjudicate that, exactly. Rather, the ruling — which was front-page news Thursday — said Trump’s tariff actions “exceed any authority granted” under IEEPA.

As is custom for the attorneys defending the administration in lawsuits multiplying like Gremlins, the Justice Department adopted an overtly adversarial stance, insisting the court, which exists solely for the purpose of adjudicating these sorts of cases, is somehow operating outside its remit.

Legal strategists have repeatedly suggested Trump would be better served to argue cases on the merits rather than denying to courts the right to review. Even if Congress is eager to cede the powers delegated it by the Constitution, the courts aren’t. Or at least not all of them. Establishing a pattern of hostility towards the judiciary as a whole — which is what Trump’s doing — is to invite unfavorable rulings.

Trump doesn’t care, though. Confrontation’s his thing, and in the escalating clash between his executive branch and the judicial system, the administration’s leaning heavily on a tried-and-true demagogic talking point: “Unelected judges” shouldn’t be allowed to stand in the way of an elected executive’s decisions, even if those decisions usurp the legislature’s authority, which in this case they arguably do.

Generally speaking, that sort of rhetoric works when populism’s en vogue, but the problem here is that Trump’s tariffs threaten to drive up consumer prices. As we were reminded during the Biden years, inflation’s an absolute death knell for presidential approval ratings. Trump’s approval hit new lows following “Liberation Day” and rebounded once his “reciprocal” tariffs were paused.

So, what now? Are all tariffs levied under IEEPA null and void? Will the administration be enjoined from charging the “reciprocal” levies once the “pause” expires in early July (or early August for the China duties)? Not necessarily.

The administration will find less controversial ways to justify the implementation of trade restrictions, and the DoJ will almost surely ask for an emergency stay — so, an emergency declaration in lieu of an appeals process to determine the validity of another emergency declaration.

Almost invariably, this’ll end up before the Supreme Court, where Alito and Thomas will try to convince their fellows to take a few more steps down the road to autocracy.

The government — which in this case just means Trump — will insist that Nixon did it, so they can too, an argument which encapsulates the administration’s thinking on a lot of issues.

Maybe that’ll fly, maybe it won’t. It’s worth noting that tariffs, particularly onerous tariffs, can be a hard sell with the libertarian crowd, and there are some GOPers on the Hill starkly opposed to Trump’s trade strategy.

Even if it’s stayed and eventually superseded, the ruling may undermine Trump’s already waning leverage in negotiations with America’s trade partners. You have to believe Xi Jinping’s smirking in Beijing: “Democracy strikes again.”

For the C-suite, this makes an already indeterminate situation even more unpredictable. I can’t say I’m sympathetic. The business community should’ve thought about this before casting a(nother) ballot for a serial bankrupter and, lest we should forget, a convicted felon.