A Swift Response to the Supreme Court
Just one day after the US Supreme Court ruled that his sweeping tariff policy exceeded presidential authority, President Donald Trump announced he would raise global tariffs 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” decision by the court. The ruling, delivered in a 6–3 vote, struck down tariffs he had imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law typically used for sanctions rather than broad import taxes.
The court made clear that the Constitution assigns the power to levy taxes — including tariffs — to Congress, not the executive branch. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the framers did not grant taxing authority to the president.
Trump, however, insisted the decision only limits his use of IEEPA and does not prevent him from turning to other legal tools.
Other Legal Paths — With Limits
Although the court blocked the emergency-powers approach, the administration still has alternative options under existing trade laws. Among them are Section 301 and Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Section 301 allows the Office of the US Trade Representative to investigate and respond to unfair foreign trade practices. But the process can take up to a year in some cases, meaning tariffs cannot be imposed overnight. It is also narrower in scope and would not support sweeping, across-the-board import taxes.
Section 122 offers faster action, permitting temporary import surcharges of up to 15% for a maximum of 150 days in cases of serious balance-of-payments problems. However, those measures expire automatically unless Congress votes to extend them.
Even before the ruling, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent acknowledged that these alternatives are less powerful and less flexible than IEEPA. Still, Trump signaled he intends to keep much of his tariff framework intact using these other authorities.
Political Stakes and Legal Battles
The tariffs have become central to Trump’s economic agenda, even as polls show mixed public support amid concerns about rising costs. Vice President JD Vance criticized the court’s reasoning, arguing it undermined the president’s ability to regulate imports.
Meanwhile, lawsuits challenging the tariffs are already underway. A coalition of largely Democratic-leaning states, along with businesses ranging from small importers to major retailers, argue that the emergency law never authorized such sweeping trade measures.
Despite the legal setback, Trump remains defiant. He has framed the dispute as critical to protecting American industry and insists he will find new ways to keep tariffs in place. Some measures may fall away, he conceded, but others will stay — or be replaced.
