A Swift Response to the Supreme Court
Just one day after the US Supreme Court struck down his sweeping tariff policy, US 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 “ridiculous” and “anti-American” ruling by the nation’s highest court. The 6–3 decision found that he had overstepped his authority by using emergency powers to justify broad import taxes.
The court’s majority opinion made clear that the US Constitution assigns the power to impose taxes — including tariffs — to Congress, not the president. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the framers did not place taxing authority in the executive branch.
Trump, however, dismissed the ruling as limited in scope, arguing it addressed only one legal pathway and that other options remain available to him.
Searching for Other Legal Routes
The now-invalidated tariffs were imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law traditionally used for sanctions and asset freezes. While previous presidents have invoked the statute dozens of times, Trump was the first to apply it to tariffs.
With that route closed, the administration is exploring alternatives, including 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 measures — but the process typically takes up to a year. Section 122 permits temporary import surcharges of up to 15% for 150 days in cases of serious balance-of-payments issues, though those measures expire unless Congress extends them.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has previously acknowledged that these tools are more limited and less powerful than the emergency authority Trump initially relied on. Still, the president signaled that tariffs imposed under Section 232 and existing Section 301 measures would remain in place, alongside new investigations into what he calls unfair trade practices.
Legal Battles and Political Stakes
The original tariff program had been challenged by a coalition of mostly Democratic-leaning states and a range of businesses, from small importers to major retailers. They argued that the emergency law did not authorize tariffs and that the administration’s actions failed established legal standards.
Trump has framed the fight as central to his broader economic agenda, even as polls suggest tariffs are unpopular among voters concerned about rising costs. Vice President JD Vance criticized the court’s decision, accusing it of undermining presidential authority to regulate imports.
Despite the setback, Trump made clear he does not intend to retreat. “Some of them stand. Many of them stand. Some of them won’t, and they’ll be replaced with other tariffs,” he said, signaling that the trade battle is far from over.
