A Swift Response to the Supreme Court
Just one day after the US Supreme Court dealt a blow to his trade policy, President Donald Trump announced he would raise global tariffs from 10% to 15%, effective immediately. The move follows a 6–3 ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States that struck down his sweeping tariffs imposed under emergency powers.
Trump criticized the court’s decision in a social media post, calling it “ridiculous” and “anti-American,” and insisted the ruling only blocked one specific legal pathway he had used. “In order to protect our country, a president can actually charge more tariffs than I was charging,” he wrote, adding that other legal tools remain available to him.
The court found that the Constitution clearly grants Congress — not the president — the authority to impose taxes, including tariffs. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion that the framers did not vest taxing power in the executive branch.
Searching for Other Legal Pathways
The ruling centered on Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law typically reserved for sanctions and asset freezes. While other presidents have used IEEPA frequently, Trump was the first to apply it broadly to import taxes.
Despite the setback, the administration says it will rely on other statutes to maintain its tariff framework. Among them are Section 301 and Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Section 301 allows the US Trade Representative to investigate unfair trade practices and impose retaliatory tariffs, though the process can take up to a year in many cases. Section 122, meanwhile, permits temporary import surcharges of up to 15% for 150 days without prior investigation, but any extension requires congressional approval.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has acknowledged that these alternatives are “not as efficient and not as powerful” as IEEPA, suggesting the administration may face limits in how aggressively it can act.
Legal Battles and Political Stakes
The Supreme Court’s decision followed lawsuits from a coalition of mostly Democratic-leaning states and businesses ranging from small importers to major retailers. They argued that the emergency powers law did not authorize tariffs and that Trump’s actions failed established legal standards.
Trump has framed the fight as central to his economic agenda, even as public polling shows mixed support for tariffs amid broader concerns about rising costs. Vice President JD Vance criticized the court’s reasoning, arguing that Congress had given the president authority to regulate imports.
For now, some tariffs remain in place under national security provisions and existing trade investigations. But with lawsuits continuing and alternative legal routes more constrained, the future of Trump’s expanded tariff strategy is likely to remain tied up in both courts and Congress.
