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 baseline tariffs on countries worldwide from 10% to 15%, effective immediately.
In a social media post, Trump said the move followed what he described as a flawed and “anti-American” ruling by the high court. The decision, delivered in a 6–3 vote, found that Trump had exceeded his authority by using emergency powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose broad import taxes.
The Court made clear that the Constitution grants Congress — not the president — the power to levy taxes, including tariffs. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the framers did not place taxing authority in the executive branch.
Trump, however, insisted the ruling only invalidated one specific use of the law and argued he still has other legal pathways to pursue higher tariffs.
Alternative Legal Paths — With Limits
Although the Court rejected the use of IEEPA for tariffs, it did not block the administration from using other trade laws. The White House has signaled it plans to rely on authorities such as Section 301 and Section 232 of the Trade Act to keep much of its tariff framework intact.
Section 301 allows the US Trade Representative to investigate unfair trade practices and impose retaliatory tariffs. But the process is slower and more structured, often requiring months of investigation before duties can take effect.
Another option, Section 122, permits temporary import surcharges of up to 15% for 150 days in cases involving serious balance-of-payments issues. While it allows quicker action, it is time-limited unless Congress approves an extension.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has previously acknowledged that these alternatives are not as broad or powerful as the emergency authority Trump initially invoked.
Legal Battles and Political Stakes
The original tariffs triggered lawsuits from several states and businesses, including small importers and major retailers. Opponents argued that the emergency law cited by the administration was never intended to authorize sweeping import taxes.
Trump has framed the court fight as central to his economic agenda, even as public polling suggests tariffs remain controversial among voters concerned about rising costs. Vice President JD Vance criticized the ruling, accusing the Court of undermining executive authority.
Despite the setback, Trump made clear he has no intention of backing down. “Some of the tariffs stand. Many of them stand. Some of them won’t, and they’ll be replaced with other tariffs,” he said, signaling that the broader trade confrontation is far from over.
