A Swift Response to the Supreme Court
Just a day after the US Supreme Court struck down his sweeping global tariffs, President Donald Trump announced he would raise worldwide tariffs from 10% to 15%, effective immediately. In a social media post, Trump said the move followed what he described as a “ridiculous” and “anti-American” ruling from the court.
The 6–3 decision found that Trump had overstepped his authority by using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law traditionally reserved for sanctions and emergency economic measures, to justify broad import taxes. The court made clear that the Constitution gives Congress—not the president—the power to impose taxes, including tariffs. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the framers did not grant taxing authority to the executive branch.
Trump, however, dismissed concerns about the ruling, arguing it only blocked one specific use of IEEPA and insisting that other legal avenues remain available to pursue his trade agenda.
Turning to Alternative Trade Powers
While the ruling limits the emergency-powers route, it does not eliminate the White House’s ability to impose tariffs altogether. Trump pointed to existing national security tariffs under Section 232 and trade penalties under Section 301 as remaining in full force. He also signaled plans to launch new investigations into what he called unfair trade practices.
Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 allows the Office of the United States Trade Representative to investigate and respond to foreign trade practices deemed harmful to US commerce. However, it requires formal investigations and can take up to a year before tariffs are imposed.
Section 122 offers a faster option, permitting temporary import surcharges of up to 15% for 150 days in cases of serious balance-of-payments problems. But those measures automatically expire unless Congress approves an extension.
Even Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has acknowledged that these alternatives are less powerful and efficient than IEEPA, suggesting the administration now faces a more constrained toolkit.
Legal Battles and Political Stakes
The original tariffs were challenged by a coalition of states and businesses, ranging from small importers to major retailers, who argued that the emergency law did not authorize such sweeping trade measures. The Supreme Court’s ruling gives those lawsuits stronger footing and raises the possibility of further legal disputes over refunds and enforcement.
Trump has framed the fight as central to his economic vision, even as public polling has shown mixed support for higher tariffs amid concerns about affordability. Vice President JD Vance criticized the court’s decision online, accusing it of undermining congressional intent.
Despite the setback, Trump made clear he has no intention of backing down. Some tariffs, he said, will remain; others will be replaced. “We’ll find other ways,” he suggested, signaling that the trade battle is far from over.
