I have a essay up at Scotusblog that dissects the Court's focus on verbs and other favorite linguistic rules of textualism at the oral argument in the tariff cases last week. The oral argument was not the presidential-power-meets-major-questions showdown many expected it to be. Nor was the emphasis on textualism confined to only the conservative justices (although Justice Jackson did seize one moment to continue her ongoing defense of a purpose-oriented approach.) The essay concludes:
Some people get frustrated when the Court decides high-stakes cases in ways that focus on the micro level of text, dictionary definitions, and grammar, rather than on major principles of constitutional or substantive law. They want the Court instead to take head-on the big issues of separation of powers. Unlike a sweeping decision on presidential authority, a focused textualist analysis coming out against the president in a case like this one is less likely to deter the administration from attempting a policy-do-over via another route. Nor is it as likely to be viewed by the president as a major smack down. And that, indeed, may be part of the attraction of this approach for at least a portion of the Court.
Full discussion is available here.